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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was a Jew. So he was caucasian, probably with dark hair and dark eyes.

You know not all Semetic peoples aren't white, right?

Not pp but then what are these non-white semitic people?
Black? Asian?

Lots in East Africa.

[Anonymous]

Nice how OP removed the cross from the work "respectful"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was a Jew. So he was caucasian, probably with dark hair and dark eyes.

You know not all Semetic peoples aren't white, right?

Not pp but then what are these non-white semitic people?
Black? Asian?

Lots in East Africa.

It is true that Amharic and Coptic are Semitic languages, but the cultural relationship is more distant. The way Hebrew and Aramaic speakers look is far more relevant for imagining what Jesus looked like. Also, non-Muslim Lebanese people are directly descended from Canaanites.

This is a dumb discussion and present-day Jewish people, though we don't accept the teachings of Jesus or the religion that grew around them, cam be rightfully disturbed that our real, historical ancestral population is getting claimed by pretenders.

Tldr: Jesus probably looked "white" but not Scandinavian. If Jews and Italians and Lebanese people are white then so was he.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps it should be as in Islam, where representations of Allah and Mohammed do not show a face.

Islam is strictly prohibited from worshipping “idols”. That’s why you will never find a face or symbol that reflects Allah, Mohammed or Islam.

Or Jesus. Islam reveres Jesus as a prophet of god.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps it should be as in Islam, where representations of Allah and Mohammed do not show a face.

Islam is strictly prohibited from worshipping “idols”. That’s why you will never find a face or symbol that reflects Allah, Mohammed or Islam.

Or Jesus. Islam reveres Jesus as a prophet of god.

You used to be able to find them, though. Lots of Persian paintings of Mohammed (including full face) through the 15th century.

[Anonymous]

Why does it matter what he looked like? Do you want to start banning old paintings, icons and some frescoes?
How would that change white supremacy?

I say he was the color of the Republican Party

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was a Jew. So he was caucasian, probably with dark hair and dark eyes.

You know not all Semetic peoples aren't white, right?

Not pp but then what are these non-white semitic people?
Black? Asian?

Lots in East Africa.

It is true that Amharic and Coptic are Semitic languages, but the cultural relationship is more distant. The way Hebrew and Aramaic speakers look is far more relevant for imagining what Jesus looked like. Also, non-Muslim Lebanese people are directly descended from Canaanites.

This is a dumb discussion and present-day Jewish people, though we don't accept the teachings of Jesus or the religion that grew around them, cam be rightfully disturbed that our real, historical ancestral population is getting claimed by pretenders.

Tldr: Jesus probably looked "white" but not Scandinavian. If Jews and Italians and Lebanese people are white then so was he.

Coptic is not a semetic language. Amazing how you don’t know this.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Revelation 1:14-15 New International Version (NIV)

14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters.

This sounds like a horror movie! Bronze glowing man(?) with white hair and red eyes. Yikes!

If he(?) opened his mouth and all I heard was a loud white noise of rushing water it would be terrifying. Perhaps this is why we have more relatable images.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?