removing images of Jesus as white - can we have a respecful discussion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree. Jesus was Jewish.
He mostlikely was very tan or brown skin like they are in the middle east. And it's not a big deal. I love Jesus.

Do you always roam around looking for three year old threads to resurrect?

Nothing wrong with resurrecting this thread (see what I did there). I missed it the first time.

3 days.

Not 3 YEARS.

There is no scholarly agreement on the appearance of Jesus; over the centuries, he has been depicted in a multitude of ways.

The depiction of Jesus in pictorial form dates back to early Christian art and architecture, as aniconism in Christianity was the norm within the ante-Nicene period.[1][2][3][4] It took several centuries to reach a conventional standardized form for his physical appearance, which has subsequently remained largely stable since that time. Most images of Jesus have in common a number of traits which are now almost universally associated with Jesus, although variants are seen.

The conventional image of a fully bearded Jesus with long hair emerged around AD 300, but did not become established until the 6th century in Eastern Christianity, and much later in the West. It has always had the advantage of being easily recognizable, and distinguishing Jesus from other figures shown around him, which the use of a cruciform halo also achieves. Earlier images were much more varied.

Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

———>Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created.<———

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

[img]


barb farley
[/img]

[img]


[/img]

What amuses me most about this thread is the “royal we” usage. Who is “we?”

Who here has the power/authority/right to censor the image of Jesus and then make sure people who worship Jesus only view approved images of Jesus?

Gotta be the constant poster who asks “so we all agree?” on random things about religion as if it means something a few anon online posters agree on random things.

Get a real hobby. For your own mental health, sis.

DP. What amuses mean most is that you are making a point no one is arguing against and still manage to use pejoratives for other posters. That’s quite an accomplishment! You are an exceptionally good troll. And you must be a troll because you have no point.

You’re so bored.

it's a good thread. I've wondered this a lot. Would Christianity have spread in Europe in the way it did if Jesus was depicted as he really looked like? A swarthy middle eastern tanned Jew?

short and stocky and brown from the sun? No I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree. Jesus was Jewish.
He mostlikely was very tan or brown skin like they are in the middle east. And it's not a big deal. I love Jesus.

Do you always roam around looking for three year old threads to resurrect?

Nothing wrong with resurrecting this thread (see what I did there). I missed it the first time.

3 days.

Not 3 YEARS.

There is no scholarly agreement on the appearance of Jesus; over the centuries, he has been depicted in a multitude of ways.

The depiction of Jesus in pictorial form dates back to early Christian art and architecture, as aniconism in Christianity was the norm within the ante-Nicene period.[1][2][3][4] It took several centuries to reach a conventional standardized form for his physical appearance, which has subsequently remained largely stable since that time. Most images of Jesus have in common a number of traits which are now almost universally associated with Jesus, although variants are seen.

The conventional image of a fully bearded Jesus with long hair emerged around AD 300, but did not become established until the 6th century in Eastern Christianity, and much later in the West. It has always had the advantage of being easily recognizable, and distinguishing Jesus from other figures shown around him, which the use of a cruciform halo also achieves. Earlier images were much more varied.

Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

———>Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created.<———

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

[img]


barb farley
[/img]

[img]


[/img]

What amuses me most about this thread is the “royal we” usage. Who is “we?”

Who here has the power/authority/right to censor the image of Jesus and then make sure people who worship Jesus only view approved images of Jesus?

Gotta be the constant poster who asks “so we all agree?” on random things about religion as if it means something a few anon online posters agree on random things.

Get a real hobby. For your own mental health, sis.

DP. What amuses mean most is that you are making a point no one is arguing against and still manage to use pejoratives for other posters. That’s quite an accomplishment! You are an exceptionally good troll. And you must be a troll because you have no point.

You’re so bored.

it's a good thread. I've wondered this a lot. Would Christianity have spread in Europe in the way it did if Jesus was depicted as he really looked like? A swarthy middle eastern tanned Jew?

short and stocky and brown from the sun? No I don't think so.

Nobody is Christian because of Jesus’s looks. He was humiliated and tortured to death.

[Anonymous]

Jesus was white case settled.

Jesus was Jewish. Just Google Famous Jewish celebs they are all white. Paul Rudd, William Shatner, James Caan, Bob Saget they all look white to me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree. Jesus was Jewish.
He mostlikely was very tan or brown skin like they are in the middle east. And it's not a big deal. I love Jesus.

Do you always roam around looking for three year old threads to resurrect?

Nothing wrong with resurrecting this thread (see what I did there). I missed it the first time.

3 days.

Not 3 YEARS.

There is no scholarly agreement on the appearance of Jesus; over the centuries, he has been depicted in a multitude of ways.

The depiction of Jesus in pictorial form dates back to early Christian art and architecture, as aniconism in Christianity was the norm within the ante-Nicene period.[1][2][3][4] It took several centuries to reach a conventional standardized form for his physical appearance, which has subsequently remained largely stable since that time. Most images of Jesus have in common a number of traits which are now almost universally associated with Jesus, although variants are seen.

The conventional image of a fully bearded Jesus with long hair emerged around AD 300, but did not become established until the 6th century in Eastern Christianity, and much later in the West. It has always had the advantage of being easily recognizable, and distinguishing Jesus from other figures shown around him, which the use of a cruciform halo also achieves. Earlier images were much more varied.

Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

———>Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created.<———

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

[img]


barb farley
[/img]

[img]


[/img]

What amuses me most about this thread is the “royal we” usage. Who is “we?”

Who here has the power/authority/right to censor the image of Jesus and then make sure people who worship Jesus only view approved images of Jesus?

Gotta be the constant poster who asks “so we all agree?” on random things about religion as if it means something a few anon online posters agree on random things.

Get a real hobby. For your own mental health, sis.

DP. What amuses mean most is that you are making a point no one is arguing against and still manage to use pejoratives for other posters. That’s quite an accomplishment! You are an exceptionally good troll. And you must be a troll because you have no point.

You’re so bored.

it's a good thread. I've wondered this a lot. Would Christianity have spread in Europe in the way it did if Jesus was depicted as he really looked like? A swarthy middle eastern tanned Jew?

short and stocky and brown from the sun? No I don't think so.

Jesus was clearly charismatic while he was alive. But it's his message that spread itself, not depictions circulated by anybody around 50-300AD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree. Jesus was Jewish.
He mostlikely was very tan or brown skin like they are in the middle east. And it's not a big deal. I love Jesus.

Do you always roam around looking for three year old threads to resurrect?

Nothing wrong with resurrecting this thread (see what I did there). I missed it the first time.

3 days.

Not 3 YEARS.

There is no scholarly agreement on the appearance of Jesus; over the centuries, he has been depicted in a multitude of ways.

The depiction of Jesus in pictorial form dates back to early Christian art and architecture, as aniconism in Christianity was the norm within the ante-Nicene period.[1][2][3][4] It took several centuries to reach a conventional standardized form for his physical appearance, which has subsequently remained largely stable since that time. Most images of Jesus have in common a number of traits which are now almost universally associated with Jesus, although variants are seen.

The conventional image of a fully bearded Jesus with long hair emerged around AD 300, but did not become established until the 6th century in Eastern Christianity, and much later in the West. It has always had the advantage of being easily recognizable, and distinguishing Jesus from other figures shown around him, which the use of a cruciform halo also achieves. Earlier images were much more varied.

Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

———>Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created.<———

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

[img]


barb farley
[/img]

[img]


[/img]

What amuses me most about this thread is the “royal we” usage. Who is “we?”

Who here has the power/authority/right to censor the image of Jesus and then make sure people who worship Jesus only view approved images of Jesus?

Gotta be the constant poster who asks “so we all agree?” on random things about religion as if it means something a few anon online posters agree on random things.

Get a real hobby. For your own mental health, sis.

DP. What amuses mean most is that you are making a point no one is arguing against and still manage to use pejoratives for other posters. That’s quite an accomplishment! You are an exceptionally good troll. And you must be a troll because you have no point.

You’re so bored.

it's a good thread. I've wondered this a lot. Would Christianity have spread in Europe in the way it did if Jesus was depicted as he really looked like? A swarthy middle eastern tanned Jew?

short and stocky and brown from the sun? No I don't think so.

Jesus was clearly charismatic while he was alive. But it's his message that spread itself, not depictions circulated by anybody around 50-300AD.

I think that's true around the mediterranean, but then it went to Rome and the Italians became popes they commissioned art work, and if you've seen the last supper Jesus is white with reddish hair. Why would they do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Whose image? I’ve never seen an Asian Jesus.

I have; it was a gift from a Catholic church in Taiwan. Definitely looked East Asian.