Okay. It's 2006 and I'd like to believe were all educated. We all know that Jesus was from a region of the earth were the people are born with dark skin and all that. So why, all these years later are there still pictures of this white Jesus with blond hair in circulation, hangin on walls an in Churches and stuff. Knowing what we know isn't that kinda like sacreligious. Do you have one of pictures?
2006-11-07 03:31:08 · 24 answers · asked by The Avatar 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I agree. Jesus wasn't white. he wasn't black either. I don't take any church seriously with a picture of a white Jesus. I think it's idolatry.
2006-11-08 05:04:09 · answer #1 · answered by red skorpion 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What's worse is that there's so many people who claim to be experts in Christianity, and yet they supposedly "don't know" what Jesus looked like. Why is it so difficult to come to grips with the fact that Jesus had some color? Would they love Him any less? I loved Him as a child when there was a White Jesus on the back of my church fan and hanging on the walls.
2006-11-07 11:41:20 · answer #2 · answered by wrtrchk 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Right, we do know Jesus was born in the Middle East. Unfortunately, there are many different colors of skin in the Middle East, included some very fair people. I actually haven't seen a picture of a blonde Jesus, it would probably make me laugh, but I would guess he has brown hair, maybe a little darker, olive skin, brown eyes, likes meditteranean food. Who really knows, but you're right, he was Middle Eastern.
2006-11-07 11:35:17 · answer #3 · answered by straightup 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Have you ever played the game of "telephone"?
You get a great big circle of people and you whisper something
to your right, and he/she repeats it to the person to his/her right
and so on all around the circle until it comes back to you.
Usually (depending on the size of the circle and how much beer
was involved), the message has NOTHING to do with what
you whispered to the person to your right.
Time/repetition is not kind to messages, images, information
in general.
Everybody adds their own "spin" to the message - and if you
live in a White culture, the local spin will be that Jesus looked
more like your peers.
Truly, the best information we have of what he might have
looked like is through early writings and DNA analysis of
the people who grew up around him (at least for half of his
genome!).
However, nobody's going to scrape off the painting in your
local church to put up another picture of someone who locals
will find less sympathetic.
HUMANS don't work that way.
2006-11-07 11:36:28 · answer #4 · answered by Elana 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The people who produced such paintings, starting 100's of years ago, were VERY highly educated. But they had an agenda to pomote for the Catholic church. You make a good point--Jesus was a Jew, he had dark skin, hair, and eyes. This is no problem for most of us in our modern "multicultural" era, but it was a big problem for racist Europeans back in the day, so they created their own version of Jesus that the people would accept. Those paintings remain part of religious tradition even today. Sad but true.
2006-11-07 11:38:46 · answer #5 · answered by bandit 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that Jesus was dark skinned (and I'm white). Us white people love to assume that all good people must certainly be white ;) But in reality, all people are the same, of all colors.
But in reality, Jesus was probably dark skinned. Either way it doesn't matter. He still died for the sins of the world, and rose again!
2006-11-07 11:33:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
LMAO!!!! What I see is that blacks have thier own Jesus and the Whites have thier own. You know what I see blonde and brown here Jesus and blue eyed and brown eyed Jesus. It's just a persons imagination of what Jesus looked like while he was on earth.
2006-11-07 11:34:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Jesus was Jewish. Semitic peoples were brown-skinned. I
don't object to Jesus being portrayed as being black, and I'm
white. So what exactly are you saying?
2006-11-07 11:41:35 · answer #8 · answered by zenbuddhamaster 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He wasn't much to look at, so who cares what he is portrayed as?
People prefer to teach using images, right?
What would be sacreligious would be to imply that only one portrait is the proper image.
2006-11-07 11:37:12 · answer #9 · answered by Jay Z 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Jesus would have more than likely been a swarthy Mediterranean man, not the waifish blonde Anglo-Saxon that's pictured in most medieval paintings.
http://www.world-faiths.com/GCSE%20Short%20course/son_of_god.htm
2006-11-07 11:49:10 · answer #10 · answered by elegant_voodoo 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋