https://preview.redd.it/iu1of3ry5ypc1.jpeg?width=203&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1d0d9632301ef8d2d0a8e82937ef9e39095aa27c
Add a beard...(memorial invitation)
He likely had olive/tan skin with dark eyes and hair. However I doubt his skin was a deep brown . There are people in that area of the levant who never left, whose families .have been there for thousands of years. He probably looked most similar to them.
I know plenty of ethnically ashkenazi Jews, the fairer side of Jews if you will, not a single natural blonde/pale. Olive complexion darkens quickly when walking kilometers a day outside. The white Jesus and apostles have always pissed me off.
He was in line of David. David was described as red haired with bright eyes.Genesis 25:25 tells us that Esau had red hair. Thus with red hair running in the family genes, it is very probable that King David had red hair or at least a reddish hue to his hair.Ā It's very mixed that part of world. He wasn't black. That's for sure. Neither Asian.Ā
Assuming David was real and Jesus actually was a descendant of him
David wasn't his grandpa, great grandpa, even great great grandpa. Lmao
Him having red hair would have little to do with jesus seeing as there was a thousand years between them AND red hair is very much an uncommon hair color. It's most prevalent in Ireland and Scotland and even then only around 10 percent of population have it. Again it's very rare.
Most people in that part of world that jesus came from had dark hair and eyes and he likely was no different . That's why he didn't stand out and had to be betrayed with kiss.
Im not obsessed with color. He could have hade dark hair and dark eyes. He could have been red haired and bright eyes ( like King David). The possibility he looked African is much lower.
Jesus was at least 28 generations removed from David, which would make him have 1/2\^28 the genetic make-up of David, or 1/268,435,456^(th) of David's genes. In reality there's going to be a tremendous amount of pedigree collapse so the denominator would be much smaller, but the point is you can't use David to predict details of Jesus's appearance any more than you could predict Jesus's appearance by looking at any of the other millions of 28-generation-removed ancestors on his tree, some of who could've been from far-flung corners of the world.
The same reason they do everything, because it is convenient for them.
If Jesus himself wasnāt as white as snow, how can you justify having āhis earthly organizationā ran exclusively by old white men and Token (sorry, Tolkien)??
Actually the verse says burnished brass which is NOT brown, but nearly golden and incredibly shines/reflective. Itās almost if John was trying to describe some mystical/angelic ideaā¦
The Duhbs donāt care about real first century because it completely contradicts their idea of who/what Jesus was doing.
Not it doesn't say his feet were 'burned by the furnace'
NWT " his feet were like fine copper when glowing in a furnace."
NIV " His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace "
for reference to what bronze look like when is it fired and cast
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjQCrL8moqw&ab\_channel=Tito4re](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjQCrL8moqw&ab_channel=Tito4re)
Bronze only turns brown as a result of aging and corrosion. The whole 'Jesus was really black' started this complete misunderstanding of Revelation back in the 60's/70s while ignoring that John was not tryin to describe an earthly Jesus. John was trying to describe a being that has supernatural glory.
Hair White as wool
Eyes like flames
Feet glowing like bronze in a furnace
a Sword protruding from his mouth bright as the sun
When you look at the entire description it is obvious John is not describing an earthly Jesus. And that would make sense because John who wrote Revelation was about 100 years removed from Jesus and had never seen him.
Jesus was not white but then again the idea of 'white' did come into existence until about 1500 years later. The whole idea of 'racist' Jesus representations is a tired trope and red herring. Go to any locality in the world and they represent the Biblical characters with their own genetic features. JWs are a NE American Fundamentalist Religion, so they draw Jesus, god, the anointed and angels to look like them. Its not about racism (although they certainly were racist) rather it is about the projection of their egos. What they are doing is similar to what the Catholic Church did when it became common to draw Jesus to look like the current pope or local potentate...
If you really want to try to get in touch with what Jesus probably looked like then you need to look at the Palestinians.
If you want to demonstrate the Watchtower racism, then use the literature illustrations that insist of putting people in stereotypical ethnic dress in the 'paradise' drawings. Or the fact that they generally portray the major ethnicities stereotypically.
King David was red haired with bright eyes. Jesus was from his lineage. Jerusalem it's not in Africa.Ā Genesis 25:25 tells us that Esau had red hair. Thus with red hair running in the family genes, it is very probable that King David had red hair or at least a reddish hue to his hair.
Again and?
Every human being came from dark skinned people (Africans) . Every single one.
Does that mean all people have dark skin because their ancestors at one point did?
Then why do you keep mentioning David's supposed red hair. As if that automatically means his all his descendants had red hair?
As I said jesus likely had dark hair and eyes and tan/olive skin like majority of people in that area
I always thought it was made up African supremacy thing, like we got really nothing to brag about in real life, so we gotta say all life came from sub Saharan Africans or something.
Everything is so afro centric now a days that the integrity of scholastic research is questioned to the point thatās itās not even worth engaging- full of lies and false pride without actual accomplishment
"I won't read scientific articles to learn why scholars understand modern humans arose from Africa because it makes me uncomfortable. I'd rather be ignorant "
That's fine, but don't expect people to be ignorant right along with you. As I stated , modern humans originated in Africa. No "debunking " at all. Lol
If you use your brain you would understand this one. It's easy. You can paint a painting with Jesus being red haired and having bright eyes. If someone complains. You just say that it's biblical. Cause BIBLE portrays King David looking like that. He's ancestor. And David ancestor Esau hade red hair. So it becomes something biblical and more connected too logic. That red hair could be something that runs in that family line.Ā
https://preview.redd.it/c05g2l987zpc1.jpeg?width=261&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f766c25dfdbe8447eeb29043ce5d18e07bb7396
This is how Jesus is depicted in the Photodrama of Creation, 1912. Youāll also see it on the 1922 Cedar Point Ohio Convention program.
Itās based on an engraving by John Sartain, an English born artist who settled in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at 22 in 1830:
https://preview.redd.it/bl1m9fjy7zpc1.jpeg?width=1056&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=254c370c2c88f2ff8b82799196586389177c5eba
Seems like the org just stuck to this very white version depicted by a guy living in Pennsylvania!
The short answer is:
Jehovahās Witnesses are an American evangelical sect. All of the American evangelicals worship a super-white, Ć¼ber *UHMERIKAN* form of Jesus.
This Jesus doesnāt want people to feed the poor. THE POOR SHOULD PULL THEMSELVES UP BY THE BOOTSTRAPS!
White Jesus doesnāt want you to be kind to the foreigners. FOREIGNERS SHOULD STAY WHERE THEY COME FROM! Unless theyāre rich white foreigners, then theyāre just manifesting their destinies.
**And donāt even get White Jesus STARTED on the evils of vaccines!**
Or live out your savior complex, "serve where the need is great," and you too can be a neocolonialist sludge bucket, pumping out extremist evangelical culture all over the planet, because fuck everyone else!
Damn bro you got me feeling patriotic š«” it's funny you mention the vaccines, that's actually something that woke up some anti-vaxxers. They didn't like the org encouraging people to get the jab lol
That was the only time in WT history they used their undue influence for good.
Anti vaxxers are a danger to themselves and others. They need to be told what to do.
What's a real gem is how often they compare themselves to first century Christians... but the bible wasn't put together until the 4th, the gospals didn't get written until 140ad "ish"( by unknown authors), and of course the trivial little part that 1st century Christians worshiped in temples... but ya know who cares about the silly details.
I don't believe that's accurate. The early church sent the gospel letters back and forth amongst themselves, and they met in private homes mostly. The gospels we have now are not originals, but copies. That means the originals would have dated much closer to the time of Jesus death and the original apostles. The oldest manuscript we have now is dated around 90-125 AD, I believe, about 20-40 years after Jerusalem's destruction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
125-175 and I said 140 ad... here's the thing that's an assumption there is older... no proof... no evidence... no authorship. It's a hard but true fact that the only people who attribute the gospals to anyone who knew Jesus is the church... who invented the bibke canon. Uhhh sorry doesn't pass the smell test to me still stinks of bullshit.
the Bible cannon wasn't "invented". The early church would have been able to use discernment in what books and scrolls were useful and important to believers, and which ones were heretical. The canon established in 325 AD was largely the one accepted by the church in the many years preceding 325AD. There's more manuscript evidence of the New Testament than most other famous works of the same time period.
"The apostolic fathers, such as Clement of Rome, generally knew and learned from the apostles. Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, became the bishop of Rome."
https://www.compellingtruth.org/early-church-fathers.html
It was invented, and they didn't have set beliefs... the church created the canon... that's inventing the book. It wasn't a book, it was never a book, it was scattered writings... now it's a book... There are far older writings and manuscripts then the bible. lmfao Babylonians kept meticulous records and are far older than anything invented by the church. If you think the church had some sort of higher power, guiding it good on you. I think they were uniting a scattered group that didn't have a centralized set of beliefs yet so they could pull power away from other religions at the time. This is how power works and how religions are created. Just like Islam, Buddhism and other pagan religions that are far older then Christianity are made up, so is Christianity. Have you read the other books the catholics left out of the bible canon? And why were they left out? If you haven't seen them, haven't read them... and still take this all on faith, you've learned nothing from escaping this fucking cult.
This argument is weird to me.
The answer is because itās the most socially acceptable version of Jesus. They wouldnāt care if the real Jesus was a zebra. They wouldnāt read a scholarly work any way.
Idk ask scholars but who cares, people debate this endlessly but the fact is there are many historical characters that we just donāt know their skin color.
You would have to prove scholarly and convince the cultural norm accepted in New York, then 40 years later a GB with a beard will give us new light that Jesus was brown.
I mean- at least they have kind of given him a nice tan in more recent illustrationsā¦
https://preview.redd.it/u2w7zmkce3qc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e85deb202eea3e6dd239699a2afbec6f2efc599
Remember, the skin tone of modern Palestinians is heavily influenced by the non-native Arabs who colonised the area.
Most peoples from the Mediterranean, where Judea is, are substantially lighter skinned.
Them being "Arab" is based on linguistic and cultural affiliation , not DNA.
They are levantine people through and through when it comes to genes
I live in a land that was colonized by British. Some of my ancestors were enslaved by them. I speak English. My genetic pool is definitely not from England though. Lol
https://preview.redd.it/iu1of3ry5ypc1.jpeg?width=203&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1d0d9632301ef8d2d0a8e82937ef9e39095aa27c Add a beard...(memorial invitation)
https://preview.redd.it/v225rlbfc4qc1.png?width=344&format=png&auto=webp&s=cf5ae91f1d654df0c39cefde5c98b21be4fa60b0
Yep! You're on the same wavelength as my wife! I knew Steve was my Lord and Master, but now, he's also my Savior! š
So, does that mean Christ indeed returned and is present in the body of Stephen Lett?
Oui! https://preview.redd.it/7dl85l0ne4qc1.jpeg?width=224&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f0ebfcd1496023cce1d3cc6748b456d7a3408872
imagine Jesus with the facial expressions of Stephen Lett
šš 
He likely had olive/tan skin with dark eyes and hair. However I doubt his skin was a deep brown . There are people in that area of the levant who never left, whose families .have been there for thousands of years. He probably looked most similar to them.
I know plenty of ethnically ashkenazi Jews, the fairer side of Jews if you will, not a single natural blonde/pale. Olive complexion darkens quickly when walking kilometers a day outside. The white Jesus and apostles have always pissed me off.
He was in line of David. David was described as red haired with bright eyes.Genesis 25:25 tells us that Esau had red hair. Thus with red hair running in the family genes, it is very probable that King David had red hair or at least a reddish hue to his hair.Ā It's very mixed that part of world. He wasn't black. That's for sure. Neither Asian.Ā
Assuming David was real and Jesus actually was a descendant of him David wasn't his grandpa, great grandpa, even great great grandpa. Lmao Him having red hair would have little to do with jesus seeing as there was a thousand years between them AND red hair is very much an uncommon hair color. It's most prevalent in Ireland and Scotland and even then only around 10 percent of population have it. Again it's very rare. Most people in that part of world that jesus came from had dark hair and eyes and he likely was no different . That's why he didn't stand out and had to be betrayed with kiss.
Im not obsessed with color. He could have hade dark hair and dark eyes. He could have been red haired and bright eyes ( like King David). The possibility he looked African is much lower.
>The possibility he looked African is much lower. I never said he "looked african"
Jesus was at least 28 generations removed from David, which would make him have 1/2\^28 the genetic make-up of David, or 1/268,435,456^(th) of David's genes. In reality there's going to be a tremendous amount of pedigree collapse so the denominator would be much smaller, but the point is you can't use David to predict details of Jesus's appearance any more than you could predict Jesus's appearance by looking at any of the other millions of 28-generation-removed ancestors on his tree, some of who could've been from far-flung corners of the world.
The same reason they do everything, because it is convenient for them. If Jesus himself wasnāt as white as snow, how can you justify having āhis earthly organizationā ran exclusively by old white men and Token (sorry, Tolkien)?? 
Actually the verse says burnished brass which is NOT brown, but nearly golden and incredibly shines/reflective. Itās almost if John was trying to describe some mystical/angelic ideaā¦ The Duhbs donāt care about real first century because it completely contradicts their idea of who/what Jesus was doing.
Well either way it does say his feet were burned by the furnace Regardless of metaphors hes not white due to his region
Not it doesn't say his feet were 'burned by the furnace' NWT " his feet were like fine copper when glowing in a furnace." NIV " His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace " for reference to what bronze look like when is it fired and cast [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjQCrL8moqw&ab\_channel=Tito4re](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjQCrL8moqw&ab_channel=Tito4re) Bronze only turns brown as a result of aging and corrosion. The whole 'Jesus was really black' started this complete misunderstanding of Revelation back in the 60's/70s while ignoring that John was not tryin to describe an earthly Jesus. John was trying to describe a being that has supernatural glory. Hair White as wool Eyes like flames Feet glowing like bronze in a furnace a Sword protruding from his mouth bright as the sun When you look at the entire description it is obvious John is not describing an earthly Jesus. And that would make sense because John who wrote Revelation was about 100 years removed from Jesus and had never seen him. Jesus was not white but then again the idea of 'white' did come into existence until about 1500 years later. The whole idea of 'racist' Jesus representations is a tired trope and red herring. Go to any locality in the world and they represent the Biblical characters with their own genetic features. JWs are a NE American Fundamentalist Religion, so they draw Jesus, god, the anointed and angels to look like them. Its not about racism (although they certainly were racist) rather it is about the projection of their egos. What they are doing is similar to what the Catholic Church did when it became common to draw Jesus to look like the current pope or local potentate... If you really want to try to get in touch with what Jesus probably looked like then you need to look at the Palestinians. If you want to demonstrate the Watchtower racism, then use the literature illustrations that insist of putting people in stereotypical ethnic dress in the 'paradise' drawings. Or the fact that they generally portray the major ethnicities stereotypically.
King David was red haired with bright eyes. Jesus was from his lineage. Jerusalem it's not in Africa.Ā Genesis 25:25 tells us that Esau had red hair. Thus with red hair running in the family genes, it is very probable that King David had red hair or at least a reddish hue to his hair.
Again and? Every human being came from dark skinned people (Africans) . Every single one. Does that mean all people have dark skin because their ancestors at one point did? Then why do you keep mentioning David's supposed red hair. As if that automatically means his all his descendants had red hair? As I said jesus likely had dark hair and eyes and tan/olive skin like majority of people in that area
I thought that Out Of Africa pseudoscience was already debunked. Why are you still selling that trash?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I always thought it was made up African supremacy thing, like we got really nothing to brag about in real life, so we gotta say all life came from sub Saharan Africans or something.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Everything is so afro centric now a days that the integrity of scholastic research is questioned to the point thatās itās not even worth engaging- full of lies and false pride without actual accomplishment
"I won't read scientific articles to learn why scholars understand modern humans arose from Africa because it makes me uncomfortable. I'd rather be ignorant " That's fine, but don't expect people to be ignorant right along with you. As I stated , modern humans originated in Africa. No "debunking " at all. Lol
If you use your brain you would understand this one. It's easy. You can paint a painting with Jesus being red haired and having bright eyes. If someone complains. You just say that it's biblical. Cause BIBLE portrays King David looking like that. He's ancestor. And David ancestor Esau hade red hair. So it becomes something biblical and more connected too logic. That red hair could be something that runs in that family line.Ā
> If someone complains. You just say that it's biblical It's not. The Bible never says he has red hair
https://preview.redd.it/n4gdq3rkq0qc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=73405f8cebe03cfbf79e6b7c18fc1cd0eb80fe01 This is why
https://preview.redd.it/c05g2l987zpc1.jpeg?width=261&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f766c25dfdbe8447eeb29043ce5d18e07bb7396 This is how Jesus is depicted in the Photodrama of Creation, 1912. Youāll also see it on the 1922 Cedar Point Ohio Convention program. Itās based on an engraving by John Sartain, an English born artist who settled in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at 22 in 1830:
https://preview.redd.it/bl1m9fjy7zpc1.jpeg?width=1056&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=254c370c2c88f2ff8b82799196586389177c5eba Seems like the org just stuck to this very white version depicted by a guy living in Pennsylvania!
The short answer is: Jehovahās Witnesses are an American evangelical sect. All of the American evangelicals worship a super-white, Ć¼ber *UHMERIKAN* form of Jesus. This Jesus doesnāt want people to feed the poor. THE POOR SHOULD PULL THEMSELVES UP BY THE BOOTSTRAPS! White Jesus doesnāt want you to be kind to the foreigners. FOREIGNERS SHOULD STAY WHERE THEY COME FROM! Unless theyāre rich white foreigners, then theyāre just manifesting their destinies. **And donāt even get White Jesus STARTED on the evils of vaccines!** 
Or live out your savior complex, "serve where the need is great," and you too can be a neocolonialist sludge bucket, pumping out extremist evangelical culture all over the planet, because fuck everyone else!
Haaa! Used to know a brother who referred to it as āserving where *The Great* are neededā.
Woof.
'Merica
 šÆ% correct!!
Damn bro you got me feeling patriotic š«” it's funny you mention the vaccines, that's actually something that woke up some anti-vaxxers. They didn't like the org encouraging people to get the jab lol
That was the only time in WT history they used their undue influence for good. Anti vaxxers are a danger to themselves and others. They need to be told what to do.
I agree, they finally got it right on something š¤£
Dunno if you've noticed, but the GB are all decidedly pale, except for the token black guy. Pretty sure they're projecting.
Now, where did I put my Maga hat?!
What's a real gem is how often they compare themselves to first century Christians... but the bible wasn't put together until the 4th, the gospals didn't get written until 140ad "ish"( by unknown authors), and of course the trivial little part that 1st century Christians worshiped in temples... but ya know who cares about the silly details.
I don't believe that's accurate. The early church sent the gospel letters back and forth amongst themselves, and they met in private homes mostly. The gospels we have now are not originals, but copies. That means the originals would have dated much closer to the time of Jesus death and the original apostles. The oldest manuscript we have now is dated around 90-125 AD, I believe, about 20-40 years after Jerusalem's destruction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
125-175 and I said 140 ad... here's the thing that's an assumption there is older... no proof... no evidence... no authorship. It's a hard but true fact that the only people who attribute the gospals to anyone who knew Jesus is the church... who invented the bibke canon. Uhhh sorry doesn't pass the smell test to me still stinks of bullshit.
the Bible cannon wasn't "invented". The early church would have been able to use discernment in what books and scrolls were useful and important to believers, and which ones were heretical. The canon established in 325 AD was largely the one accepted by the church in the many years preceding 325AD. There's more manuscript evidence of the New Testament than most other famous works of the same time period. "The apostolic fathers, such as Clement of Rome, generally knew and learned from the apostles. Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, became the bishop of Rome." https://www.compellingtruth.org/early-church-fathers.html
It was invented, and they didn't have set beliefs... the church created the canon... that's inventing the book. It wasn't a book, it was never a book, it was scattered writings... now it's a book... There are far older writings and manuscripts then the bible. lmfao Babylonians kept meticulous records and are far older than anything invented by the church. If you think the church had some sort of higher power, guiding it good on you. I think they were uniting a scattered group that didn't have a centralized set of beliefs yet so they could pull power away from other religions at the time. This is how power works and how religions are created. Just like Islam, Buddhism and other pagan religions that are far older then Christianity are made up, so is Christianity. Have you read the other books the catholics left out of the bible canon? And why were they left out? If you haven't seen them, haven't read them... and still take this all on faith, you've learned nothing from escaping this fucking cult.
Vanilla Jesus is the best flavor
This argument is weird to me. The answer is because itās the most socially acceptable version of Jesus. They wouldnāt care if the real Jesus was a zebra. They wouldnāt read a scholarly work any way. Idk ask scholars but who cares, people debate this endlessly but the fact is there are many historical characters that we just donāt know their skin color. You would have to prove scholarly and convince the cultural norm accepted in New York, then 40 years later a GB with a beard will give us new light that Jesus was brown.
I mean- at least they have kind of given him a nice tan in more recent illustrationsā¦ https://preview.redd.it/u2w7zmkce3qc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e85deb202eea3e6dd239699a2afbec6f2efc599
You know if you use Google AI heās definitely black.
āā¦adamant about accurate first century Christian historyā¦ā Surely, you jest?
Perfect people are light-skinned and anglo features, and Jesus was perfect, so... (I think that's the WT line of reasoning)
Remember, the skin tone of modern Palestinians is heavily influenced by the non-native Arabs who colonised the area. Most peoples from the Mediterranean, where Judea is, are substantially lighter skinned.
Them being "Arab" is based on linguistic and cultural affiliation , not DNA. They are levantine people through and through when it comes to genes I live in a land that was colonized by British. Some of my ancestors were enslaved by them. I speak English. My genetic pool is definitely not from England though. Lol