How would showing the actual depiction of Jesus, as he would have really looked, (Arab), affect Christianity?

Question

Do people have problems worshipping someone that doesn't look like them? Most non-white christians worship a blue-eyed Jesus, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

And where did Mary Magdeline get blonde hair in the middle east? Was it all the Roman influence? I am so confused.

(intelligent answers only please, no ranting athiests... I too am athiest but this question has always bewildered me)

sorry, middle-eastern, my mistake

Answer 1

The first images of Jesus weren't made until at least a hundred years after his death. I think the first images date from about 300 CE. In the first images, he was depicted as a beardless youth, and art at the time denied the human body. This is why Byzantine art was really crappy compared to the Greco-Roman art beforehand.

There are a lot of racist Christians, and I don't think they would be too happy if they found out what Jesus and his family really looked like. I believe the History (or Discovery) channel had a really good program about this last year; I would suggest looking into this if you're interested. (Check out their websites.)

When I went to Egypt and visited the Coptic Churches, they had a lot of white Jesus stuff for sale in their gift shops, so I thought this could have just been for the tourists. However, the modern decoration in the churches (the new tapestries) also showed Jesus as white. It was really strange. I think it may be a cultural thing since the Christians are control and have made god in their image.

The problem is though, is that this imagery of Jesus has been so ingrained into people that they would probably deny the logical depiction of Jesus. Instead, they may scream foul and include the Devil in their arguments, but I don't think it would change the religion too much. Most people would probably just ignore the truth and go on believing what's convenient and comfortable for them.

Answer 2

I agree with Ashley M. Though no one knows what Jesus looked like, and more likely artists of those eras depicted him as if he were from their own culture. This image has been in place for hundreds and hundreds of years. I really don't think it is fair to blame racist white people of the current era for starting this misconception.

However, people need to keep in mind that over the years the original races have mixed and just because some people in a certain area look they way they do now, doesn't mean that is how they looked then. When you see someone from the middle east, (or anywhere for that matter), how do you know what their genetic heritage is? It is my understanding that original Pakistanis and people from India are of indigenous race, but their neighbors in other countries are Caucasian with dark hair and eyes just like the people of Greece, Italy and Spain. Caucasians have more body hair and facial hair, indigenous people do not. Weren't there 4 original races, black, indigenous, Asian and Caucasian?I have seen many middle easterners that are light skinned they are not all dark skinned.

When people try to decide Jesus race with the description of the woolly hair, do they really read the bible. It says His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; This is from revelations and I think that it clearly implies his heavenly body and not his earthly body.

Answer 3

I took many classes in early religious history because I had the same questions. It is possible that they were light-skinned. For example, if you picture a Greek today, you picture a dark-haired person with olive skin tone. However, during classical times, many of the gods and goddesses, and Greek people, were blond. They became dark with the inter-mixing of cultures and after the Turkish invasion. The same can be said about the Middle East. At one time, they may have been lighter than today, but due to invasions and immigration, plus immigration, we may picture a different type of person than exists in that area today.

Answer 4

Jesus was almost certainly Semitic in appearance, but I don't think describing him as an Arab would be accurate.

In any event, Jesus's appearance is of no consequence whatsoever.

Many other cultures show holy figures with a variety of skin tones, especially Mary. (e.g. Our Lady of Guadalupe, The Black Madonna of Montserrat)

(By the way, I am also an atheist but I try not to rant)

Answer 5

Simply put, most artists depict a 'pleasing image' in iconography. You are talking primarily of the images created in Europe, but I'm sure in other parts of the world such depictions use local images.

The only people disturbed by accurate depictions would be the racist christian groups, such as the Neo-nazi party and various flavors of KKK.

An interesting footnote: all extremist and racists groups claim allegiance to Christianity or Islam - never Judaism, Hinduism, or atheism. Christianity in particular has historically (and some would say, remains) a violent, racist, and hating community.

Answer 6

It wouldn't affect me at all. Every right thinking Christan knows that Jesus isn't a white, pasty, porcelain doll looking individual. He was certainly a Semite, and therefore would look like anyone of Middle Eastern decent.

That being said, no one on this side of heaven has seen Him personally, and we aren't to worship idols (ie: images). Therefore, any "image" of Jesus, is really a stumbling block to Christians.

Answer 7

It depends on the heritage of Mary. Some Arabs are dark and some Arabs are light. Most Jews I have seen are all light. We do not know what shade Christ was.

Answer 8

Does it not say somewhere jesus' hair was woolly? I would think he would be darker. I do think a lot of people would have a problem with this.

Atheist, but not ranting.

Answer 9

Jesus is a Jew...Not an Arab..

Answer 10

It wouldnt have mattered to me what he looked like. The nationality is unimportant, the message is.