White Jesus

What I don't get is why Jesus has to be a man. Why couldn't he have been a woman? There are no eyewitness descriptions. Men are always portrayed as the only spiritual people. Sisters, we can't allow the atrocity to go on. Rise up. Turn away the vanity of men with a clean shaven, dress wearing Jesus.

Lots of interesting discussion on the reasons Jesus has been portrayed one way or another in the past. Lets talk about how he is portrayed right now. New artistic portrayals are made daily, and it seems like lots of what we are talking about is for the most part agreed on.

So, if you're an artist and you know that painting a white Jesus is probably false, what motivates you to do it despite your own knowledge?

A
R
T

Maybe because you don't use as much pencil lead drawing a white Jesus.

I'm thinking tattoo jesus...

would he have latin tats, or is the timeline all wrong.

If I was an artist. I would attempt to comunicate the visions my of mind. So others could interpert my vision. Does that make sense? Other wise im just duplicating something that another artist created.

THAT, is hysterical.

How about showing us some examples. You are obviously fishing for something so just post it already.

Jesus was and has been painted white by white people. Duh, not overly complicated.

How about this one?

Didn't he answer that question ... HERE.

Alias wants to know : If you are a white person, how does it makes you feel to see a White Jesus?
Like this one:


I like this one because it combines a White Jesus, a kid and, most importantly if you live in Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama or Oklaho/yomama, FOOTBALL!

My answer to Alias is: It's about comfort. We are comfortable with others like us. We are all racists, but I mean that in the nicest way. As kids we like who we are and the people who look like us, that is, until we mature and learn to love all people. You don't have to be taught to like people who look like you, but you do need to be taught NOT like others. "Carefully taught" as the song says.

It is my considered opinion that everyone, before they turn 21, ought to have sex with at least two persons of every race on earth. (That should keep the high schools and universities humming.) Racism would disappear and, if you were a Christian, it wouldn't matter what Jesus looked like, except that he looked like another human being.

Next: I'll tell you the story about the preacher I met in the late 60's who was sure 1) that Jesus was white and 2) he most certainly did NOT have long hair!!

Joe(that would make him look kinda like the preacher..... )Nation

there are many eyewitness descriptions... there are many second-hand descriptions as well. All of these confirm Jesus is a man...

Au contrair, mon frere. Produce even one reliable eyewitness account.

where's Methuselah when you need him, eh...?

Seeing him last night while praying doesn't count.

Little white kids like that are so freakin' ugly.

I'll bet he's got red hair under that helmet.

I think it makes some white people feel good if they make Jesus white because they are just so funny looking, not to mention pasty and untoned.

Let's face it, most white people, myself included, are kinda dorky.

If Jesus wasn't white, all we'd be left with is this feeling we're not hot like Snoop Dog (at least I think he's hot), or exotic looking like Hispanics etc.

Well I have the Bible, but your philosophy seems to have ruled that out already.
Eyewitnesses usually converted. If I give you a Christian's account, you will say it is biased, if I give you the Bible, you say it is not historically reliable(despite the fact that it is more reliable than the 10 best known ancient works, such as the Iliad).
How can I give you a reliable eyewitness account of Jesus when you don't consider any eyewitness accounts reliable?

Also, why would the early Christians lie about Jesus? I mean following Jesus led to death, persecution, torture, exile, war, imprisonment, etc. In fact, Jesus guaranteed these hardships to anyone who would follow him! Why would anyone LIE to say it was true to the point of being killed for it?

Still waiting.

I would suggest, as JPB has done, that you go study Paul some more...

They are full books of the New Testament. There are 27 books in the New Testament.

You consider it impossible for a cotton mill owner to be scholarly?

In fact, it is a moot argument about the specific dates of the earliest manuscripts, because - as your estimate was 300A.D. - we are still well below the 500 year gap between when Homer supposedly wrote the Iliad and the first manuscripts we have of it.

When you consider the cultural clues found in the New Testament, that is names of officials, events taking place, the fact that Jerusalem was still standing and Paul was clearly alive(oh, and he was an eyewitness. A HOSTILE eyewitness, as a matter of fact.), it is not possible - at all - that the NT was written after 70A.D.
That puts it within 40 years of the death of Jesus(and please stop calling him 'your boy Jesus' he aint my homedawg, he's my King.). Well within the time of the generation that would have witnessed his death and resurrection.

As for the bible's historicity as a whole, well when you look at the 10 non-Christian sources I listed, you can say this about Jesus.
He lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar
He lived a 'virtuous life'
He was a wonder-worker
He had a brother named James
He was acclaimed to be the Messiah
He was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover
Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died
His disciples believed he rose from the dead
His disciples were willing to die for their belief
Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome
His disciples denied Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God

This agrees entirely with what the bible says about Jesus. Why is the bible not considered historically accurate despite this secular confirmation and the thousands and thousands of manuscripts?