White Jesus

"It's pretty common in the West to see Jesus portrayed as a slender Caucasian man. Long brown hair and a clean beard."

It is pretty common in most religions to embody their gods or prophets as being like them so they can relate to them. In buddhism the same thing happens. The Buddha was originally from india yet any time you see statues of the buddha in other counties outside india, he takes on their likeness.

It proves a point that theology is not about truth but about something else entirely. It does not care about truth although it will attempt to claim that it has revealed the truth. However any time anyone thoroughly examines their theology they shortly abandon it all together. It is because there is no truth within theology.

Sure, and I agree.

However, I'm more interested in how people feel about it. I'm particularly interested in the feelings of those who believe in the religion.

A
R
T

Jesus as caucasian:

No, but my impression is that he does look (as commonly depicted) like a lot of my semitic friends. It's not like he has fair skin with freckles - he's usually pretty tan in pictures.

Because white was the default mode/hue/shade of all things 'good' at the time these pictures were being mass produced and presented to the public as a representation of Jesus.

If you look at iconic art of the virgin with child, for instance, he doesn't look like a typical white baby there:





I think it's the default because the greatest number of Christians are of European descent and I surmise they wanted that reflected in their god.
Diversity wasn't exactly something that was celebrated until recently and by some.


If one believes that there is a factual component at all to the Christ story - it'd be nice to see the truth.

I wouldn't choose white myself. I picture him looking like a Rasta man - a Bob Marley look-alike would do nicely.


Probably because that's not what matters or is most important to most believers.
It goes deeper than skin tone or pigmentation for most people who believe in something.
It doesn't have any effect on me. It hasn't seemed to have turned off the many African-American believers I know, who are actually some of the most devout and committed believers I've ever met.
It doesn't seem to be something that matters greatly to them - I think they know it's just a representation of a concept they believe in, and as such is not as important as the concept itself.


Each individual would have an individual reaction. To me, it wouldn't make a whit of difference.


URL: http://able2know.org/topic/166295-1

Seriously, that's an interesting thought. First thought out of the box is that we would lose the whole Southern Bapist Convention.

That'd be alright with me - they could choose Brad Pitt as their Jesus model- and that'd be alright with me too.

aidan, keep it in your pants! No seducing the Brad Pitt Jesus!

Thanks for your replies. I guess I'm interested in exploring the idea that if it doesn't matter what race Jesus was, and yet one had to be picked. There is no account, (that I'm aware) of Jesus has claimed he was blue, green, or some other racial color extra to what the earth already offers. If it doesn't matter, then wouldn't this be a case of a deity making an arbitrary choice? If an deity can make a choice without deliberate intent, what possibilities does that open up for how people view other decisions?

I'm also familiar with older Semitic depictions of Jesus. I'd not call them common though.

A
R
T

- I'd be more likely to go for the Bob Marley Jesus - unless Brad can also sing...

No seriously - that's an interesting thought. Why WAS the conceptual Jesus, as the human embodiment of love and forgiveness, planted in the womb of a Jewish girl and born in Bethlehem as opposed to having been planted as a soul seed in the womb of an African woman or a Roman woman or Greek woman or Native American woman...when you think about it like that - it becomes an interesting cultural question...and one that I've never thought about before.

It's bringing up a lot of thoughts -and somes I've never really thought about before- so , they're not really cohesive. I'll have to take a walk and think it through - put these thoughts in some sort of order and get back to you.

Really interesting topic....

Hehe I cant help but to think of tanless blue eye white nomad. Im sorry but I have been in the area. And that picture kind of seems silly to me But yeah if all you know are how people look around you, Then thats what youre gona paint. And that image was probaly passed down as the religion spreaded to other parts of the world At least thats my personal opinion

How does that make you feel?

More specifically, why do we continue to see new images made that continue this racial profile? Certainly we know better now, right? How does it make you feel to know more art is created now? At some point in the artistic process, the artist must make conscious aesthetic decisions. They have to recommit to it.

I can't help but wonder if a preacher said "Paint me a picture of Jesus," and the artist gave him a picture of a Hispanic or Asian Jesus, the preacher would somehow be disappointed or upset.

So while, I can't imagine why it would matter, I feel like it does. I feel like if it didn't, we wouldn't be seeing the *same* Jesus over and over.

A
R
T

No


See above


Probably because the folks who first came up with the image were white. I don't know about the effect on other believers, but it has no effect on me. Jesus could have been white, black, blue or green and it would not change His purpose or the love that He portrays.


See above


If you look at several portrayals of the likeness of Jesus, you will see that there is, in fact, more diversity.


For me...none. For others...hard to say. But, some folks are not open to anything but what is in their own perceived truthfulness. Regardless of whether it is valid or not.


You are welcome

{edit}
The only thing I might add is that Jesus was a Jew. Are Jewish people not considered white? He turned to the gentiles after the Jewish people did not accept Him. Are gentiles not generally considered white? Just a thought.

To equate a perceived likeness of Jesus or any other symbol of religion with the truth of theology is, in my opinion, a rather narrow focus of a huge subject.

Hmmmm well I think alot of it has to do by the way that particular religion spread during a few times in its history "Accept christianity as the only true religion or die" That might have put some fear in anyone trying to say the original art work that depicted the charactor should be any different Now as far if someone that went to the beach and got a tan, Is that person any different than before he got a tan? LOL yeah I think racism is silly too

But forget the past. Whatever reason Jesus has been white in the past, what reason exists to continue this portrayal?

A
R
T

My guess would be same reason the Wise Men are always portrayed the same. The same way that Mary is always portrayed the same. etc. etc.

Well alot of religion is tradition. Passed down from from generations prior. And its a group activity. There have been many artists over the years that protrayed him diferently, some are alot more acurate likeness population in the area. The question is for someone to walk in a church and say "yes I know your ancestors depicted him this way but can we hang this picture instead?" Well that might be a hard one to sell them

Assuming that all churches hang portaits of Jesus. Which they don't. I doubt that most of us care what the portrayal is since nobody knows what the likeness would really be.

Also, and this just occurred to me, it may have to do with where you're accustomed to viewing the likenesses.

If you walk in a black church, there are very often images of a black Jesus.
True, this may be a relatively recent change, but it is a change I have witnessed.

Ever'body knows Jeebus was a alien . . . sheesh . . .

hey if he was an alien then he must be green