What’s up with the OP?
Grim
Grrr! Hamsters ate my OP!! Lets try this again…
I 've seen portraits of him and I’ve seen statues of him; I was just wondering what the logic BEHIND it all was. I mean wasn’t Jesus Jewish? Do the people that have/make actually believe that Jesus was black? Or is it ment to be taken in a metaphorical sense? …As in sense of belonging or identity?
Also couldn’t black Jesus be considered a tad bit sac-religious? (this is where the crux of the debate lies) I mean it would pretty much be the same as me making out Buda to be white or something along those lines…
[disclaimer] it’s a shame I have to put this in here but just in case anybody wants to get started; No, I’m not a racist I believe ALL races are equal…
The only potraits I seen, show Jesus as a blond hair, blue eyed man!
OP: Also couldn’t black Jesus be considered a tad bit [sacrilegious]? (this is where the crux of the debate lies) I mean it would pretty much be the same as me making out [Buddha] to be white or something along those lines…
Well, there are oodles and oodles of depictions of Jesus that show him as lily-white, blond and blue-eyed, which I doubt is any more plausible as an ethnotype for a first-century Middle Eastern Jew. If blond Jesus isn’t considered sacrilegious, why should black Jesus be?
I see a big difference here; I mean we’re talking about the guys heritage…or mother to be more specific…
Why is being Jewish incompatible with dark skin and kinky hair?
Some artwork of the kind SHAKES is talking about…
To me it is identification with the “liberator of oppressed peoples” aspect of Jesus’ ministry here on earth - to portray Jesus as black is to show his incarnation as one of those suffering here on earth (who must be black, just as the oppressor must be white). This is certainly the foundatation of much of Black Liberation Theology as evidenced by this article on the subject:
Grim
I suspect that there are as many different meanings and purposes for various portrayals of Jesus as there are artists.
In my experience, the overwhelming majority of people who painted Jesus as a Nordic European, an Eastern Asian (complete with epicanthic folds), a black African, or an indigenous American did so for the purpose of recognizing that Jesus came to all people, including their particular group.
In a few cases, there are additional motives, often political. Among some of the “Aryan” groups in the U.S., I have seen strident attempts to claim that Jesus was not Jewish. For good or ill, the concepts that surround Jesus are larger than any small group attempting to politicize him, and even those groups may inadvertantly shed new perceptions on the larger view. If someone’s individual view of Jesus is paricularly silly, their message will disappear along with their movement. In the meantime, it is a historical reality that all groups have tended to cast his image in the contet of their own cultures, so I hardly consider that action to be sacriligeous or blasphemous. (I doubt that Jesus would be offended.)
You would expect a first century Jewish woman to have blonde hair? :dubious:
People like to draw a Jesus that looks like them. Why is it okay if He looks like you but not okay if He looks like me?
I saw something on the net or in the bookstore or SOMEWHERE that was a collection of about a gazillion different opinions of what Jesus looks like. It reinforced my opinion that he is simply a man who lived before cameras were invented.
Yes, Jesus was Jewish, reconstruction of the skull of a semitic man from around the time Jesus is understood to have lived, here.
Like Tom already said, there are any number of different reasons for Jesus to be portrayed as one physical type or another. I wouldn’t read too much into it though. Most likely, upon adopting Christianity, people simply assumed Jesus looked like them(and the people around them). There are scant physical descriptions in the bible IIRC.
Now thats Jesus. 
You know, I’ve always wondered why the default position has not been that Jesus was similar in appearance (allowing for height) to the people living in that general region of the world today. I’ve always thought of him as being somewhat Middle-Eastern in appearance (dark/black hair, swarthy complexion, dark eyes).
Is this really a far out assumption?
I understand the political statement that Black Jesus tries to make, though. It’s the same concept as Black Santa- too often, cultural icons that blacks were supposed to pay lip-service to reinforce the conception of whites as saviors, benefactors, etc. It’s just the appropriation of the symbol for their own- nothing wrong with it, especially since it’s just as plausible that he was black as it is that he was white.
I have to agree with Stonebow that I too figured that he probably had a dark hair, dark eyes, and olive complexioned skin. Of course, there are plenty of light skinned, light hair, blue eyed Middle Easterners nowadays, but I’m wondering how much of it is due to intermarrying with Northern Europeans, and how common that would have been back in Jesus’ day.
Also, why would a black Jesus be sacrilegious? What’s wrong with being black?
Flavius Josephus, the guy with the reference to Jesus outside of Church-documents, is said to have said:
Considering the source, I’d take it with a helping of salt. The reply in the link says Josephus’ own additions of Jesus were doctored by the Church. Originally the growing Church had destroyed or altered all mentions of Jesus that portrayed him as anything less than God. A Slavic translation was said to have survived and discovered/translated. I would assume that copy was the only one that had such a description.
Why would the Church try to convince a bunch of heathens that there was historical evidence of Jesus? They could just as well excommunicate any nay-sayers and damn them to hell. If anyone could find a legitamate source would be great.
Christian Orthodox has Jesus generally as dark skinned with brown hair.
I can sort of see why people would make Jesus close to black more than I see black Santa Claus. He was from a region where many ethnicties blended and had (still do) have many dark skinned people.
Well, if some one draws your portrait so people can remember you after you’re dead and gone; You wont mind if they make you out to be white?
Not if I was supposed to be the Savior of all humanity.
Do you think Jesus is offended by pictures that show him as a blond?
All I’m going to say is that he was a carpenter. And he spent 40 days in the desert. This man is not going to be fair of skin, and he’s not going to be waifishly thin, either.
First off there are two posters in this thread that seem to think-- I think- there is something wrong with being black. Let me tell you now that I DON’T.
All I’m saying is that I don’t believe black Jesus to be a true portrayal of him. (acording to MY understanding of christianity) But hey, if it can get more people to follow his cause, then I guess it serves its purpose. Even though it may be a little deceptive. Unless someone wants to argue that he actually was black.
Alas, I must digress though, upon review, I probably shouldn’t of started this thread considering the fact that I’m atheist. I just seriously had a genuine curiousity about it.