The new Archbishop of York says that Jesus is a black man and that the Anglican Church leadership is too white. Any thoughts? https://virtueonline.org/jesus-was-black-man-says-archbishop-stephen-cottrell
I think there is a bit more historical evidence that Jesus was white (technically). 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. This I could easily have suspected, so great was the difference between him and those listening to him. His golden-colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about thirty years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between him and his hearers, with their black beards and tawny complexions! (Pontius Pilate's Letter to Tiberius Caesar) I asked him to describe his person to me, so that I might know him if I should meet him. He said: ‘If you ever meet him you will know him. While he is nothing but a man, there is something about him that distinguishes him from every other man. He is the picture of his mother, only he has not her smooth, round face. His hair is a little more golden than hers, though it is as much from sunburn as anything else. He is tall, and his shoulders are a little drooped; his visage is thin and of a swarthy complexion, though this is from exposure. His eyes are large and a soft blue, and rather dull and heavy. (The Archko Volume) He raises the dead and heals all diseases. He is a man of average size and pleasing appearance, having a countenance that commands respect, which those who behold may love or fear. He has hair the color of an unripe hazelnut, smooth almost to the ears, but below his ears curling and rather darker and more shining, hanging over his shoulders, and having a parting in the middle of his head according to the fashion of the Nazarenes. His brow is smooth and quite serene; his face is without wrinkle or blemish, and a slight ruddiness makes it handsome. No fault can be found with his nose and mouth; he has a full beard of the color of his hair, not long but divided in two at the chin. His facial expression is guileless and mature; his eyes are greyish and clear. In his rebukes he is terrible, but in his admonitions he is gentle and kind; he is cheerful, but always maintains his dignity. At times he has wept, but he has never laughed. (Letter to Lentulus) I am quite sure all of these are questionable in authenticity. The point is that we can pretend all day that Jesus was a particular race. He likely falls somewhere in the middle eastern look we see today. That doesn't really tell us much considering that we see both whiter and darker-skinned people in that region. Regarding church leadership being too white...does it matter? Is the assumption that non-white candidates for leadership are being passed over?
I'm fairly confident there is grounds for suspicion and scant evidence for the authenticity of any of these documents you quote? The scriptural evidence, (mostly prophetic admittedly), is in stark contrast to that offered in these suspiciously fictional documents, (the like of which proliferated in the first 3 centuries AD). .
I think the colour of Jesus is irrelevant. The fact that he was The Messiah and ethnically a Semite, a descendant of David, also Semitic, outweighs even the possibility that he might have been rainbow coloured with sparkly shiny bits or 'shining like the sun in full strength'. The idea that there can ever be a perfect mix ratio of coloured to shades of 'white' in church leadership is, in my opinion, nonsense. The fact that in a society where there are many non-white people, the Anglican church does not seem to have many non white leaders, is obvously anomalous and can probably be explained by the existence of racist selection procedures or racist selectors or even racist 'white' congregations being unaccepting of 'black' leadership. .
Oh yeah, their authenticity is definitely in doubt. My point was that at least there are bogus documents describing a white Jesus. I don't even think such things exist for a black Jesus lol.
No more than there are any bogus ones establishing that he was a woman, I suppose, for the same reason.
Meaning of course that he wasn't white and wasn't a woman, so anything purporting such would have to be bogus.
I say the Archbishop of York's hair grows in the wrong direction (inward) and apparently has affected his thinking.