I’ve been bothered by something lately due to a remark on television. Someone said something about Jesus, and how he was probably darker skinned, and possibly even black. Now why I nodded my head that this was a possibility, it’s still not for certain. What is for certain is that Jesus was Jewish. And like all Jewish men in those times, he was required to cover his head. Now this is not practiced as much today due to the different preferences of each group (Reform, Orthodox, Conservative). But even in each group, the head is covered with a yarmulke (yahr-muh
l-kuh) during prayer. And herein lies my problem. Where is Jesus’s yarmulke? What is the reason not to accurately portray him? I’m not sure, you tell me.
Nick Switzer
So far, bored.
well DUHHHH!!!!! He gave it to the poor!
The Yarmulke or Kippah in Hebrew is a relatively modern invention being no more than a few hundred years old. That being said Their was always a concept that ones head should be covered at certain times. In Judah this could have been similar to the kaffiah that many Arabs wear today. In the Sulhan Aruch that was compiled over 500 years ago it states that it is the way of the Righteous to cover their heads while walking, But it was always the law to cover ones head when praying or reciting a blessing over food.
so in short No Jesus did not wear a yarmulke, but he might have had his head covered in some other way.
My point was that I think modern depictions of him may be slightly askew. I had no clue that the Yarmulke was basically “modern” because the head should be covered, I always thought they existed. Thanks for the info.
Interesting read on wikipedia surrounding the topic of yarmulke and kippah
I find this phrase odd. Why fear God? I can understand fearing God’s punishment for violating one of His laws, but generally fearing God is somewhat odd.
“”The word Yarmulke is a Yiddish word. It comes from the Aramaic phrase “Yari Malka”, meaning, “Fear of the King”. This implies that one wearing a yarmulke should fear “the King”, meaning God.”"
I reinterpreted it as “respect G-d” in fear what he might do. There’s a lot of things that don’t translate great, so I take light of direct translations.
I can see that. But is also seems like fear plays a big role in most organized relegions. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, Machiavelli alluded to ruling through fear, in some of his works. Which from a certain point of view, is a valid tactic. Si vis pacem, para bellum and all that. —–
I guess simply put, to keep someone from doing what you don’t want them to do, make them have fear of something. More times than not, you can trust that a fear tactic will have more effect, then the opposite ‘love’ tactic of someone doing something because thats what they ‘should’ do.—–
My question for that argument is that those who do things because they have some sense of ‘love’, usually turns out many times better than that of the opposite. Soldiers who have love in their hearts for their fight will stand until the end, where soldiers forced to fight through fear, will turn-tail when given the oppurtunity. —–
Why is it that its human nature to utilize fear so often to obtain a certain effect, when the use of ‘love’ (the word love can be used in a vast amount of situations, so don’t limit the definition to dispute this argument) is, in its very nature, more productive and effective?—–
anyway, thats enough analyzing for one night.