why is Jesus depicted as a white male in all historic photographs...when he says out of his own mouth hes blk.

Answer 1

White artists, that apparently, don't bother reading.

RE: david/pilar: That area, was near ancient Egypt, and before the Arabs conquered it, it was Black.
Jesus was Black, and it gives a description of Him in the King James Version bible.
Skin of bronze, hair like lambswool. How many whites fit that description?

Answer 2

Photographs of Jesus??? Tell me where!

To answer your question, though, I guess if artists believe that Jesus is the Son of God and they are created in the image of God and they are white, they conclude that God and Jesus must therefore be white. That's not saying that Either one is white. It's just my proposal as to why they are Both depicted as white most of the time. I guess most Christian artists since the time of Jesus were white. Probably very few would have entertained the idea that Jesus or God was anything BUT white until a couple hundred years ago. Except for those that actually knew him, of course. And Mel Gibson.

Answer 3

Matt 5:36 And do not take an oath in the name of your head. You can’t make even one hair white or black.

The only time the word "black" is in the Gospels. (melas in Greek, found 6 times in the text, 3 x translated "ink" and 3 x "black")

... Obviously, your question is itself a lie... why bother trying to explain the truth?

Oh well... He was portrayed as white by artists that didn't understand scripture. The oldest known (at least when I was in seminary) depiction of Christ is a 2nd century bust which shows him with short coarse hair and middle-eastern features.
Such a depiction is probably much closer than the traditional western art version which brought your question.

Isaiah says in 53:1 "Who has believed what we’ve been saying? Who has seen the LORD’s saving power? 2 His servant grew up like a tender young plant. He grew like a root coming up out of dry ground. He didn’t have any beauty or majesty that made us notice him. There wasn’t anything special about the way he looked that drew us to him." This leads me to believe he was just an "average guy" for that time.

Answer 4

LOL. Only 4 out of 40 noticed the anachronism in your question. Historic photographs, my a$$.

Funny, though... there are absolutely NO artifacts of any kind from Jesus. No writings. None of the doodads he made as a carpenter. No sketches of him. No articles of clothing... sandals. It seems to me that people should have been clamoring for such things.

There are no written descriptions of him. Short? Tall? Fat? Thin? Curly hair? Straight hair? Long hair? Short hair? Crew cut? Mohawk?

Another oddity... if you account for all of the time in Jesus' life that is mentioned for in the bible (not counting the supposed 40 days in the 'wilderness'), it adds up to just shy of 3 weeks. Hmmm.

Also... none of the first century writings (epistles) give any indication at all that anyone thought of Jesus as an actual person... they describe a spiritual being, that was made known via revelation of the Holy Spirit (an emanation from the godhead, akin to the Greek 'wisdom') during midrashic reinterpretation of OT scriptures. It wasn't until the 2nd century that the idea of a 'historical' Jesus began to appear.

Modern biblical scholarship makes a VERY compelling case for the idea that Jesus was an entirely FICTIONAL character... and that all of Christianity is a fraud.

Answer 5

Just as no one will ever produce proof for the existence of God, the question of Jesus's colour may always be a matter for personal belief.

"There is absolutely no evidence as to what Jesus looked like," he says. "The artistic depictions down the ages have total and complete variation, which indicates that nobody did a portrait of Jesus or wrote down a description, it's all been forgotten."

Answer 6

Well, first of all, I don't believe he was "blk." He would have looked alot like today's Arabic people. As to his depiction as a white male, it is obviously prejudicial. I think that you'll find that most white-created religions have always shown their version of Jesus as a white man. Religion has a penchant for making it's own truths.

Answer 7

I have seen Jesus depicted in various ethnic views. In downtown Columbus, Ohio there is a Catholic church with Jesus represented as a black man. It is mostly a cultural expression. Jesus in reality would have looked like a middle eastern semetic. Also, Jesus is not quoted anywhere in scripture as saying he was black, in fact the word black only appears in the New Testament three times and doesn't refer to any person.

Answer 8

LOL! What a myriad of answers! First of all, how many of you have actually been to Israel? (ALL people should visit Israel BTW!)They are almost all white looking! Second, why couldn't Jesus have been "Black" or African, travel to Africa was possible back then, correct? Maybe Mary was "Black" which certainly would make Jesus look like a black man. The point is, does what color he was really matter?

What a superficial topic! Shows what society is preoccupied with these days to............

Answer 9

I'm not aware of him ever saying he was black because back then people didn't define race by color. If he existed, he was middle eastern. When racism really started up jesus was turned into a blond, blue-eyed saint because the idea that he could have been anything but white would have made the religious rulers eat grass..

Answer 10

This is because the master painters depicted him as white. These are actually pictures of Sananda-Immanuel. More likely than not he would be of dark skin since he was born in the middle east. If I saw a person of white skin that looked like his pictures (paintings of old), I would rebuke him because he would be from Satan. Thank you for your question.

Answer 11

The image we associate with Jesus came from The Church. These were men of European origins. It is not possible that Jesus looked this way. If you look at that area then that's what Jesus would have looked like Arabic looking!