So why do people still paint pictures of Jesus as white?

[Onkel Bob]

Originally posted by SA Rios In 1980 the shroud was dated to 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating.

 

 

Ok so I got the year wrong. But the validity of that test has since been questioned and the Vatican haven't allowed any further tests to date it since.

[SA Rios]

Originally posted by Onkel Bob Ok so I got the year wrong. But the validity of that test has since been questioned and the Vatican haven't allowed any further tests to date it since.

 

 

Of course, the Vatican want to believe that its real. either way, the image on it is the typical western image of Jesus. If it really was authentic don't you think the image would look more like a Jew.

[Onkel Bob]

Originally posted by SA Rios Of course, the Vatican want to believe that its real. either way, the image on it is the typical western image of Jesus. If it really was authentic don't you think the image would look more like a Jew.

 

 

I do not want a discussion on it's authenticity. I personally do not think it's real. You don't need to try to convince me that it isn't. Another guy said that it had been proven fake and I questioned if that was true. And as far as I know it still hasn't been proven conclusively to be a fake. And I can easily see why the Vatican won't allow further testings on it.

[bholder]

This is why I found the casting in Mel Gibson's "The Passion" so troubling (and indicitive of Mel's deep set prejudices). Jesus is played by a blue-eyed, light-brown-haired, anglo-looking northern Italian. If you watch the movie closely, you'll notice that the more sympathetic you're supposed to feel towards a character, the more anglo that character's actor looks, and the less sympathetic (e.g., Judas), the more semitic the actor is.

If Jesus were here today, most right wing evangelicals would treat him as a probable terrorist if they came across him.

[SA Rios]

Originally posted by bholder This is why I found the casting in Mel Gibson's "The Passion" so troubling (and indicitive of Mel's deep set prejudices). Jesus is played by a blue-eyed, light-brown-haired, anglo-looking northern Italian. If you watch the movie closely, you'll notice that the more sympathetic you're supposed to feel towards a character, the more anglo that character's actor looks, and the less sympathetic (e.g., Judas), the more semitic the actor is. If Jesus were here today, most right wing evangelicals would treat him as a probable terrorist if they came across him.

 

 

+1 How do you make Jesus more marketable? Make him look less ethnic. Christians have been doing it forever.

[Funkee1]

Originally posted by SA Rios +1 How do you make Jesus more marketable? Make him look less ethnic. Christians have been doing it forever.

 

 

+1.

[SB]

I personally think Jesus would have looked a lot less like a jew and more like a Roman. Unless you actually believe in virgin birth.... Every now and then there's a hymen that's so stretchy, it can remain intact not only after sex, but even after the childbirth itself. If the New Testament is based on real events (and admittedly it's a lot more believable than the OT, just because it's got less miracles and more preaching), then my interpretation would be that Mary was impregnated by a Roman and made up the whole angel story to cover it up.


*waits for angry Christian mob with torches

[Markee]

Jesus was Jewish. I hope to christ he didn't look like the shoe bomber.....

[Emprov]

Art is all about expression and interpretation. I'm guessing that the many different artists who have painted him as a white dude have thought/interpreted him as a white dude. I don't think it really makes a difference what he actually looked like, it's up to the individual to express their interpretations.

[DevilRaysFan]

Originally posted by SA Rios According to forensic specialist, this is what they think Jesus resembled. Which is a lot more believable than the typical white dude we see. I think Christian artists early on started to make Jesus look more european to make Christianity more appealing.

That looks kind of like lug. Are you telling me Jesus is lug!?!?

[SA Rios]

Originally posted by DevilRaysFan That looks kind of like lug. Are you telling me Jesus is lug!?!?

If Lug is Jesus, why would he suck at bass?

[Emprov]

Originally posted by SA Rios According to forensic specialist, this is what they think Jesus resembled.

Close, but I think he was white and had one of those halo thingys always floating above his head.

[CabbitHabbit324]

In alot of the early Byzantine (sp?) artwork, Jesus actually looked closer to what the forensic scientists created. His skin wasn't that dark, but the short curly hair and tan skin was there.

But the closer to modern times you get, the more the church has changed the image to "60's hippie Jesus". Which of course, leads only one possible outcome-

[Sister Saviour]

[DevilRaysFan]

Originally posted by SA Rios If Lug is Jesus, why would he suck at bass?

Maybe its because when lug posts an MP3, everybody covers their ears and says, "Oh, Jesus!!....."

[jonathan_matos5]

jesus is painted as white because caucasians are arrogant bastages. i know this because i am caucasian.

on a related note did you ever notice that the evil smiley is white?

[mangojeep66]

Originally posted by jonathan_matos5 on a related note did you ever notice that the evil smiley is white?

 

 

...on another somewhat related sidenote.

 

Did you know that Jesse Jackson, Jr. gave up everything 'white' in his diet and lost about 30lbs.???

 

...i.e.: white rice, processed sugar, and processed flour products...etc.

 

see, white is evil.

[bassgirl9]

Jesus was white.

His real name is Jesse Christopherson and he's from Northern Europe. He wasn't jewish either, he was a Christian. Christianity has been around since the beginning of time, which was 2000 years ago, the day god said let there be life and 'boink' all was created.



:D

Isn't it jewish custom for a single man to be beard free too? Yet he's always depicted with a beard.

[Weirdocat]

since when was jesus black?


and since when did it matter?

[bholder]

Originally posted by bassgirl9 Jesus was white. His real name is Jesse Christopherson and he's from Northern Europe. He wasn't jewish either, he was a Christian. Christianity has been around since the beginning of time, which was 2000 years ago, the day god said let there be life and 'boink' all was created. :D Isn't it jewish custom for a single man to be beard free too? Yet he's always depicted with a beard.

You're assuming he really was single. There are several theories to the contrary. (No, I'm not just referring to that stupid book and movie...)

[Craig Vecchione]

Originally posted by Weirdocat since when was jesus black? and since when did it matter?

 

 

One of the most intelligent posts of this thread. Thank you.

[bholder]

Originally posted by Craigv One of the most intelligent posts of this thread. Thank you.

 

 

It matters because portraying Jesus as caucasian is incorrect and misleading, and encourages anti-semitism.

 

In my opinion, portraying him as black would be just as problematic. Based on the information we have, he should be portrayed as semitic.

[niomosy]

Originally posted by chunkathalon Jesus was brown, right?

Bholder, you are technically incorrect.

There are only 4 races:

Caucasiod - including whitey, Indians (not native Americans), Arabs

Mongoloid - what we consider Asians or Orientals. Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc. etc.

Negroid - Blacks

Aussie Aboriginees (I forget the name) - self explanitory.

Given that Jesus was in the middle-East and was of a Jewish family, I'm thinking he's not Negoid, Mongoloid or Aboriginee. That really only leaves one choice.

[bholder]

Originally posted by niomosy Bholder, you are technically incorrect. There are only 4 races: Caucasiod - including whitey, Indians (not native Americans), Arabs Mongoloid - what we consider Asians or Orientals. Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc. etc. Negroid - Blacks Aussie Aboriginees (I forget the name) - self explanitory. Given that Jesus was in the middle-East and was of a Jewish family, I'm thinking he's not Negoid, Mongoloid or Aboriginee. That really only leaves one choice.

 

 

Nonsense, that all depends on whose scheme you want to follow. You'll find all sorts of different categories. How would native south americans fit into your "4 race" scheme?

 

And I didn't say "semitic" was a "race", just that Jesus should correctly be portrayed as being semitic. What's wrong with that? He was. No way he was as pure blood descended "of the House of David" as described and did not appear semitic.

[niomosy]

Originally posted by bholder Nonsense, that all depends on whose scheme you want to follow. You'll find all sorts of different categories. How would native south americans fit into your "4 race" scheme? And I didn't say "semitic" was a "race", just that Jesus should correctly be portrayed as being semitic. What's wrong with that? He was. No way he was as pure blood descended "of the House of David" as described and did not appear semitic.

 

 

I was never suggesting anything about him being or not being "semitic". Merely discussing status as "caucasion".

 

As for South Americans natives, they're mongoloids, having crossed over from Asia into Alaska during one of the ice ages (data suggests it may have happened before the most recent ice age). They then moved south.