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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This really occupies your mind? As a small child I figured out pictures of Jesus were “ made in our image” to comfort people. You really spend time thinking about this?

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

Newsflash!! Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Nazareth are all in Asia. More at 11 AD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This really occupies your mind? As a small child I figured out pictures of Jesus were “ made in our image” to comfort people. You really spend time thinking about this?[/quote

+1

I’m black and couldn’t care less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This really occupies your mind? As a small child I figured out pictures of Jesus were “ made in our image” to comfort people. You really spend time thinking about this?

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

Newsflash!! Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Nazareth are all in Asia. More at 11 AD.

I LOL'd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been brought up before, but more so in recent weeks as one of the responses do dismantling white supremacy. The theory behind it is that if we keep perceiving Jesus as white, and the son of God as white, that gets deep into the psyche as a false image of perfection and "good." Praying to, worshiping, elevating this handsome tall, blue eyed, long blonde haired white man image has an effect on what society deeps as "right."

Obviously Jesus, whether you believe him to be a deity or a historical man, looked nothing like the image that has been painted and elevated. In all likeliness, he was an olive, short, hairy, rustic looking guy.

Would any Black Christians be willing to share their thoughts on the imagery as it relates to supremacy?

I'm black but not a Christian, you've all been conned. Of course Jesus wasn't white, I don't even know why this is an issue. And even if miraculously he was white, wouldn't he have at least a tan? Rediculous….

When you say white, do you mean skin color or race? Because jewish and arab people belong to the white race, Caucasian

[Anonymous]

Jesus was white, six feet tall, long hair and good looking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was white, six feet tall, long hair and good looking.

[Anonymous]

No, we can’t have any kind of discussion. My choice of spiritual imagery and religious art is nobody’s business but mine.

[Anonymous]

does anyone really think Christianity would have taken off as it did, in Rome, then France, Spain, England and western Europe if Jesus had been portrayed as he likely looked? C'mon. Without the portraits/iconography that some people seem to want removed the religion would never have taken off the way it did. It would be a minor world religion.

[Anonymous]

I did not read the thread, but I've discussed this issue before:

Jesus was a Jewish man from the eastern Mediterranean 2,000 years ago, so the logical conclusion is that he looked like the way the typical Jewish man from the eastern Mediterranean 2,000 years ago looked like.

The closest example would be Sephardic Jews without a history of intermarriage, although similar sects such as Druze, Alawaites, Maronites, etc. would also be helpful. Whether that is "brown" or not is in the eye of the beholder. He certainly was neither European (as was commonly shown in European paintings) nor Arab (which is what I think some people think of when they say things like "Jesus was brown.") Please keep in mind as well that if you went back in time and spoke with people from the Middle East 2,000 years ago, they would have no freaking clue what you were saying if you asked them whether they were "white" or "brown" since those are cultural constructions developed almost 2,000 years later.

Anyways, most Christians historically have simply drawn Mary and Jesus to look like people from their culture. So, Italians made pictures of Mary and Jesus that looked Italian, Spaniards made pictures that looked Spanish, Ethiopians made pictures that looked Ethiopian, Japanese made pictures that looked Japanese, etc. (I think I saw one in a museum by a Danish artist that gave Mary red hair actually.) This is not recent, the Virgin of Gaudeloupe (the "brown lady," brown being mestiza here, not Arab (or Shephardi Jew) and not European Spanish either) was done in 1531. There are Japanese Virgin Mary's from hundreds of years ago, and of course the Ethiopian church is one of the oldest there is. There's nothing nefarious about this, except insofar as the European version crowded out other local versions in certain places (though understandably there can also be confusion or tension where a society has become more diverse and thus the pictures look dated).

This is a great example where the current trend toward iconoclasm ("let's hate on or even destroy cultural artifacts to show how woke we are") is totally wrong. We should simply encourage people to draw Jesus and Mary however the heck they want. Middle-eastern, hispanic, white, native american, sub-saharan african, asian, indian, aborigonal. Whatever.
And of course some depictions that intend to be as historically accurate as possible would be nice too, but that's not necessary for religious iconograpgy.

As relates to the debate about removing images, I think my idea of "let's create even more beautiful inclusive religious art that is reflective of our increasingly diverse communities" and the other idea of "I don't know why everyone isn't tearing down all the statutes," I'm going to go with my idea as better in the long run for many reasons. Usually the people whose impulse is "let's keep all of our current art and culture and just expand it and have even more art and culture" tend to be better regarded by history than those whose impulse is "tear it down, burn it down."

FWIW, most Jewish people identify as white. But if they all chose to declare themselves "brown" then this would still be fundamentally a pretty stupid debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:does anyone really think Christianity would have taken off as it did, in Rome, then France, Spain, England and western Europe if Jesus had been portrayed as he likely looked? C'mon. Without the portraits/iconography that some people seem to want removed the religion would never have taken off the way it did. It would be a minor world religion.

Hah, I had thought the same thing. If images of Jesus were portrayed more accurately, and not a tall white blonde handsome man, and instead a short, hairy, more robust, olive, likely large nosed ethnic man... I don't think the religion would have taken off as well. I definitely think the imagery of Jesus was a calculation based on appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:does anyone really think Christianity would have taken off as it did, in Rome, then France, Spain, England and western Europe if Jesus had been portrayed as he likely looked? C'mon. Without the portraits/iconography that some people seem to want removed the religion would never have taken off the way it did. It would be a minor world religion.

It didn't start with iconography, unless you count the fish. Jesus wasn’t depicted for quite a while according to this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

I studied the origins of the church years ago but it’s long since lost. It was an underground church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was white, six feet tall, long hair and good looking.

Interesting. Most of the jews I know think they are "white"...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did not read the thread, but I've discussed this issue before:

Jesus was a Jewish man from the eastern Mediterranean 2,000 years ago, so the logical conclusion is that he looked like the way the typical Jewish man from the eastern Mediterranean 2,000 years ago looked like.

The closest example would be Sephardic Jews without a history of intermarriage, although similar sects such as Druze, Alawaites, Maronites, etc. would also be helpful. Whether that is "brown" or not is in the eye of the beholder. He certainly was neither European (as was commonly shown in European paintings) nor Arab (which is what I think some people think of when they say things like "Jesus was brown.") Please keep in mind as well that if you went back in time and spoke with people from the Middle East 2,000 years ago, they would have no freaking clue what you were saying if you asked them whether they were "white" or "brown" since those are cultural constructions developed almost 2,000 years later.

Anyways, most Christians historically have simply drawn Mary and Jesus to look like people from their culture. So, Italians made pictures of Mary and Jesus that looked Italian, Spaniards made pictures that looked Spanish, Ethiopians made pictures that looked Ethiopian, Japanese made pictures that looked Japanese, etc. (I think I saw one in a museum by a Danish artist that gave Mary red hair actually.) This is not recent, the Virgin of Gaudeloupe (the "brown lady," brown being mestiza here, not Arab (or Shephardi Jew) and not European Spanish either) was done in 1531. There are Japanese Virgin Mary's from hundreds of years ago, and of course the Ethiopian church is one of the oldest there is. There's nothing nefarious about this, except insofar as the European version crowded out other local versions in certain places (though understandably there can also be confusion or tension where a society has become more diverse and thus the pictures look dated).

This is a great example where the current trend toward iconoclasm ("let's hate on or even destroy cultural artifacts to show how woke we are") is totally wrong. We should simply encourage people to draw Jesus and Mary however the heck they want. Middle-eastern, hispanic, white, native american, sub-saharan african, asian, indian, aborigonal. Whatever.
And of course some depictions that intend to be as historically accurate as possible would be nice too, but that's not necessary for religious iconograpgy.

As relates to the debate about removing images, I think my idea of "let's create even more beautiful inclusive religious art that is reflective of our increasingly diverse communities" and the other idea of "I don't know why everyone isn't tearing down all the statutes," I'm going to go with my idea as better in the long run for many reasons. Usually the people whose impulse is "let's keep all of our current art and culture and just expand it and have even more art and culture" tend to be better regarded by history than those whose impulse is "tear it down, burn it down."

FWIW, most Jewish people identify as white. But if they all chose to declare themselves "brown" then this would still be fundamentally a pretty stupid debate.

You are much too well informed and reasonable to be posting here. Shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was white, six feet tall, long hair and good looking.

Interesting. Most of the jews I know think they are "white"...

Interesting. Most of the jews I know understand there are more than one kind of jews.




(in fact that has been explained by others in this thread you did not read)

[Anonymous]

Most Jewish people I know are white with dark hair.