By Jason Robb, J.D.
EDITORS NOTE: The term Anglo-Saxon in this article is used generically . The white race has kindred people who do not necessarily identify themselves as Anglo-Saxon. All white people are related by blood and share common ancestry. The term Anglo-Saxon therefore would be interchangeable with any word used for identifying those of our European kindred such as Germanic or Scandinavian (among others)
For centuries Jesus Christ was depicted by Europeans as one of their own. Images of Jesus Christ whether in paint or upon stained glass clearly showed Him (including the apostles, His mother Mary, the women who labored for Christ, and his followers) as white.
However, today there is an attempt to undermine the factual evidence that Jesus was white. Instead we are told that Jesus is a mixture of all races. Many modern artists attempt to portray Jesus with all of the various racial characteristics. The Judeo-Christian preachers today and their anti-Christ rabbi counterparts argue that Jesus probably had black, tight curly, perhaps even kinky hair. The historians and archaeologists of today, excluding the ones in the past, argue he would look like a typical “Israeli” in which he would look neither black or white, but a dark brown mixture of the two.
The question is what did Jesus Christ really look like? The traditional view of Europeans hold that he had blond or auburn hair and blue or hazel eyes. His face was long with high cheek bones (note: The Shroud of Turin), and he was tall and muscular. This traditional view has been depicted in Western art for centuries such as in “The Pantocrator” or “Creator of All,” a sixth-century mosaic. Now, however, many are saying that this white “view” of Jesus by Europeans was only a testament of the ancient racism of Europeans.
This past Easter, when millions of Christians celebrated Jesus’ resurrection, scientists, historians, and Judeo-Christians collaborated to create a “new model” for Jesus, which aired around Easter on the Discovery Channel and PBS. Joe Zias, one of the leading archaeologists in Israel, who worked on the project, said, “in reconstructing this head, we are not claiming that this is exactly Jesus’ face, but we are trying to counteract all of those bad images of blond-haired , blue-eyed Jesus running around Hollywood productions. He continued and said, ” we know he didn’t have long hair and it wasn’t blond. And he wasn’t blue eyed.” How does he know that?
John Dominic Crossan, a “scholar” based in Florida said, “this is a country of immigrants and now our ethnicity is changing once again. We have a growing population of Latinos and others. What will Jesus look like in the future? He certainly will look darker.”
Even Rev. D. James Kennedy, the Presbyterian pastor from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and T.V. evangelist said, “Nobody really knows what Christ looked like, and to a very real extent it is irrelevant… The important thing is that he is the Redeemer and Son of God”.
The problem with all these reconstructions of Jesus and these Judeo-Christian ministers such as Dr. Kennedy is it is relevant what he looked like. Jesus was the Redeemer – but to whom? (Note Matt. 1:23 and others)
Although the description of Jesus in some respects is not important, such as his height, weight, or how long his hair is, what is important is that He was the Kinsmen Redeemer (Kinsmen: of the same blood) to a certain people – Israel, who now comprises the Anglo-Saxon -Teutonic and kindred people of Europe. And Jesus’ racial description identifies the people He belonged to. So in asking what Jesus looked like is actually asking what does the race he belonged to by physical birth look like? There is Biblical and historical evidence that informs us exactly what he (by race) looked like. And THAT is important. It is the reason the genealogy of Jesus is given in Matthew and Luke.
Jesus was the direct descendent of Kind David and therefore the rightful heir of the Israel’s kingdom throne. In I Samuel 16:12, when Samuel went to anoint David to be the new King of Israel it states, “And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy…” In Webster’s dictionary, ruddy is defined as … redness; akin to red; having a healthy reddish color. (Even Adam means to “blush” or ” to show redness in the face.” This identifies only one race. I’ll let you figure out which race.) Therefore King David would have been fair skinned with reddish hair. Not the typical dark Jew or Arab, as some are now being led to believe. (Some will cite Rahab (wrongly called a prostitute instead of the important position she held) and Ruth who are counted among the genealogy of Jesus – claiming that these two women of God were not Israelites and thus additional proof that Jesus was not racially pure. Those who make this erroneous claim have been deceived into believing that the countries in which these women lived characterize their race. It does not. Both women were Israelites and followers of Jehovah)
The vast majority of the world is ignorant of the fact that there were actually eye-witnesses and written accounts of Jesus, His earthly father Joseph, and His mother Mary. Many of these written accounts are kept in the Vatican library, which describes what Jesus and Joseph looked like. These written accounts were compiled in The Archko Volume.
In The Archko Volume, we can read where Gamaliel was sent by the Sanhedrin to interrogate Joseph and Mary in regard to the child Jesus. He says in regard to Joseph, “his hair looks as though it might have been dark auburn when young.” Later, he talks about Jesus’ description. “His hair is a little more golden than hers (his mother Mary), though it is as much from sunburn as anything else… His eyes are large and soft blue, his eyebrows very large.” This is a description of a people that does not represent the people we know as Jews today. This is not the description of Arabs, blacks, or any other type of people. This is the description of our ancestors – the white Europeans.
Valleus Paterculus, a Roman Historian, met and interviewed Jesus and made a report to Pilate, who in return made a report to Caesar. Paterculus states, “One day in passing by the place of Siloe, where there was a great concourse of people, I observed in the midst of the group a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus… His golden-colored hair and beard gave his appearance a celestial aspect… ”
Lastly, as we can see, Jesus was a person who resembled a particular race of people. Only one race has blond, auburn, or red hair, with blue, green, and hazel eyes. All these characteristics identify the white race, the true Israel. However, as our nation becomes more Judiazed and non-white, no longer will our ancestors in the Bible be depicted as a reflection of us, but will be depicted as a typical dark mideastern Jew.
Tom Roberts, editor of the Catholic Reporter said, “artists should feel free to reinterpret Jesus for each new era.” The era that is approaching and coming upon us is a Jewish era, an era that does not reflect the traditional Christian morals and values of our people, but is an attempt to change the core values of our people in preparation of the one world church.
The fact is Jesus Christ was a white man. He came to the lost sheep of the House of Israel as their Kinsman Redeemer. Can anyone of any race follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Yes, but it doesn’t make them kinsmen. It doesn’t give them the authority to change the historical and correct image of Jesus’ white racial background into their own. And saying that Jesus Christ is white doesn’t make a person an evil hater any more than it would were they to say that George Washington or Queen Elizabeth is white. They are merely stating the facts.