Does it matter? People are too busy looking at the finger pointing at the moon, and miss the moon.

Fuck Jesus and everything about him.

Jesus was a white Israelite.

Isn't it completely irrelevant?

why is it suddenly white supremacy when white people depict jesus as white, but when black people depict jesus as black for example, its 'depicting jesus as their own ethnicity'?
Also, jesus was not an arab. He was a jew.

He was Inuit.

Jesus was Irish. Everyone knows that.

why is it suddenly white supremacy when white people depict jesus as white, but when black people depict jesus as black for example, its 'depicting jesus as their own ethnicity'?
Also, jesus was not an arab. He was a jew.

....Ah....nvm...

Jesus was black. The devil is white.

Shut up you bastards, Jesus was Irish.

Northern or Republic? :D

Republic, obviously.

On a serious note, he was probably a Hellenized Jew.

Jesus's ethnicity is solar.

he was somalian cmon guys i expected better from you. how could you not know he was an ugly somali.

Jesús was a mexican

JJesus was a Jew. Jew just means he was a Judean. JJudean is a person from the country of Judea that evolved from the split between Israel and Judah in biblical times. Judah became Judea (after the Romans invaded and translated the hebrew into Latin). Judah was named after the tribe of Judah who formed the majority of the country of Judah (later Judea in Latin) as well as members of the Tribe of benjamin and refugees from the other tribes once Israel was defeated by the Assyrians. So simply Jesus was a Jew which is the same as being a Judean or a member of the tribe of Judah (He was a Prince of the tribe). In hebrew (the Language of Jews/Judeans) the word for Jew is just the singular (Yehudi) for the Tribe/country of Judah/Judea (Yehuda). There is no argument that Jesus was anything but a Jew and it is stated in all the Gospels for instance. By Jew the gospel writers don't mean a practicer of Judaism (strictly speaking Judaism only began after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans after Jesus lived), but more specifically as a Judean with its ethno-tribal implications.

This leads to the gentlemans question. We need to distinguish between linguistic and racial/ethnic classifications which the initial question asker fails to do. "Aryan" (from the Sansrit for nobleman) is a term to refer to the speakers of the Indo-European language families. At the time of the coining of the term it referred to Indian (non-white but caucasian) speakers as well as "white" Europeans. (Although the original "aryan" speakers were white but intermarried in Indian with darker caucasians and/or evolved/mutated due to climate). It needs to be made clear that "White" is not a synonym for "European" as "white" people did not originate in Western Europe but more likely somewhere between the middle-east and Ukraine. "White" aryan speakers invaded both Europe and Indian from this midway point. Their racial charactoristics evolved for climate. Blue eyes evolved about 10,000 years ago presumably as a slight advantage when hunting in snowy conditions it is said. All people with blue eyes share a common ancestor. About 10,000 years ago some linguists believe that the Indo-European language group actually split from the Semitic one at around this time with Sumarian possibly being an example of a language with features shared by both groups.

When people state Jesus was Middle-eastern and imply he was the same as "arabs" today they are quite wrong. Arabs have for thousands of years imported black African slaves to their societies so that most of todays "Arabs" have some sub-saharan DNA making them darker than middle-easterners from 2,000 years ago. (I believe something like 15 million black africans were imported during this time, you can see this admixture even in Saudi princes, some look more "black" than others. This has occured less in those areas further from Africa such as Syria and Lebanon where we see many of those "arabs" (actually largely decendants of the pre-Arab invasion middle eastern-peoples) have blue eyes and fair skin (such as the President of Syria who is a good example of this racial type if you google him). Jews have mainly intermarried amongst themselves for 2,000 years so that a Jew from Europe is more closely related to a Jew from Yemen (for instance, although the Jews of Yemen have a very slight admixture of sub-saharan DNA although much less than Yemeni non-Jews) than a non-Jew from Europe. Jews are however "white" as Jews are examples of this pre-subsaharan-imported middle-eastern type (like modern Syrians). Jews are actually more closely related to Kurds (another northern Semitic people) than they are to Arabs. http://maviboncuk.blogspot.com/2004/05/genetic-bonds-between-kurds-and-jews.html

Therefore. To answer your question. Jesus was "white" or more correctly a (caucasian) Jew. You don't have to be Indo-Euopean/aryan to be white. Look at the Finnish and Hungarians who are "white" Europeans but don't speak an Indo-European language. Jewish legends state that Jesus had blue eyes and ginger hair which is still a very common colouring for lots of Jews. The people in the South of "Israel/Judah" tended to be darker and the people from the north (Galilee, where he was born) tended to be lighter, a trend evident in most European countries today (and syria/lebanon). Therefore to be "white" is not mutually exclusive of being "jewish" and "white" is not a synonym for "aryan".

That is not true, all people exept a very few know that Jesus was a semite(Arab)/Jew. He was outcast by the Jewish religion because he told them he was their god. What a cool guy, he is the ultimate rebel. Its like someone coming to earth and telling all the christians to get fucked and that he is god.

I once saw what some scientists put together and it looked like Jesus was a swedish boy. Dark blonde hair, bright blue eyes, complete bull shit.

He was Jew by descent as were all Jews 1st century. They didn't allow Gentiles back then and married within.

Agreed How else can you explain the water into wine miracle. ;)