Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 whoever said upfront that Jesus looks Asian in Thailand doesn’t know what they are taking about.
I have inlaws in Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia (ethnic Chinese) and their Jesus in church/homes looks just like the typical Caucasian Jesus you see in the US.

Jesus was a Semite. But…
I’ve seen Jesus portrayed as East Asian in Catholic Churches in both Korea and Japan. The Jesus depicted by Indian Christians often has Indian features. Orthodox and Catholic Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks often depict him as a Slav. Copts depict him as an Egyptian. Sub Saharan Africans depict him as one of their own. Syriac Christians are probably the closest with their depictions as they are also Semites.
It doesn’t really matter. I think it’s neat that so many globally feel free to claim Christ as one of them.

PP here with the inlaws in Asia but... I really need to see this lol. I think you're imagining historical works by no name artists, not the actual statues and paintings that exists in the local churches that people go to and worship. Have you ever been to a church in Japan or Korea? If you did, you'd know it doesn't look any different from the churches across N America.

Anonymous wrote:

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

As a cultural (raised, not practicing) Muslim, I'd argue strict lack of depiction of Mohamed has led to many deifying him to dangerous levels.

The danger comes from the zealots and the "strictness" they wield as a weapon. The content of the strict rules is irrelevant.

The strict lack of depiction of women doesn't deify them.

Unless one Church depicts Jesus with more than one appearance, their choice is still low-keu racist.

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

In the OT, God was a Burning Bush, and I see that holiness every night when I worship.

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.

+1 whoever said upfront that Jesus looks Asian in Thailand doesn’t know what they are taking about.
I have inlaws in Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia (ethnic Chinese) and their Jesus in church/homes looks just like the typical Caucasian Jesus you see in the US.

Jesus was a Semite. But…
I’ve seen Jesus portrayed as East Asian in Catholic Churches in both Korea and Japan. The Jesus depicted by Indian Christians often has Indian features. Orthodox and Catholic Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks often depict him as a Slav. Copts depict him as an Egyptian. Sub Saharan Africans depict him as one of their own. Syriac Christians are probably the closest with their depictions as they are also Semites.
It doesn’t really matter. I think it’s neat that so many globally feel free to claim Christ as one of them.

Jewish people still exist today, so he probably looked like a Jewish person of today.

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are describing Ashnekazi jews which DNA testing shows are of European origin. There may have been some Near Eastern blood but the maternal line is all European and mostly converts to Judaism. I agree with the other poster that Jesus probably looked like a Mizarahi Jew.

Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. Ample genetic studies have disproven conversion theory is BS. Ashkenazim and Mizrachim are genetically related to other Semitic peoples in ME. Italians, too, have a lot of ME blood.

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.

+1 whoever said upfront that Jesus looks Asian in Thailand doesn’t know what they are taking about.
I have inlaws in Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia (ethnic Chinese) and their Jesus in church/homes looks just like the typical Caucasian Jesus you see in the US.

Jesus has so many facets...



Magic, Woody Allen, Zombie, Superman, Komodo Dragon, Telepathic, Vampire, Quantim (Tim?)

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are describing Ashnekazi jews which DNA testing shows are of European origin. There may have been some Near Eastern blood but the maternal line is all European and mostly converts to Judaism. I agree with the other poster that Jesus probably looked like a Mizarahi Jew.

I'm not aware of evidence that it's due to conversion and not mating.

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"...

And a whole lot of white people don't know anything about race, ethnicity, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Depictions were art, of course, with interpretation and license taken by the artists. Famously, wealthy families in Northern Europe commissioned religious art and the artist made sure that the image looked like someone in the family, or perhaps a mistress, as with Agnès Sorel as Madonna Lactans.

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.

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

You are describing Ashnekazi jews which DNA testing shows are of European origin. There may have been some Near Eastern blood but the maternal line is all European and mostly converts to Judaism. I agree with the other poster that Jesus probably looked like a Mizarahi Jew.

Anonymous wrote:Most Jewish people I know are white with dark hair.

Well you got us! You know all of them!

Damn it son, read a book. Or at least this thread.