I presume that's why he said "may have looked like." "may" in this sense appears to be used as a modal verb, used to indicate past uncertainty or possibility.
"Israel" was "founded" in 1948 by European colonial powers on the land of Palestine. It hasn't been around for 2000 years
My guess is that he looked Middle Eastern, like most other people in the area probably did. Supposedly, there was nothing remarkable about his appearance. As for why European artists depicted him as white. Yes, I'm sure there was a great deal of ignorance. However, many artists were using a sort of shorthand. For centuries the church taught a largely illiterate congregation by using annual passion plays in addition to regular services. In the passion plays actors would use standardized costumes to help the audience quickly identify the different characters. Artists followed suit for the same reason so that people could look at a painting and say, "That's a painting of Jesus with James and John." Of course we don't know what his disciples looked like either and they probably didn't look anything like they are depicted in the Louvre. Personally, I think that artists should make more of an effort to depict Jesus as at least Middle Eastern looking. But that still leaves a rather broad range of possiblities with no way to know for sure. And that is an ambiguity I can live with. I think that Jesus being depicted otherwise was not meant to do harm but has managed to create difficulties for a lot of people and that is regretable.
And? The evidence isn't there. No contemporary accounts, pictures, statues...nothing. Everything we know about the guy was written by people who were not even born until after he supposedly died.
Excuse me? The Kingdom of Israel was established around 1050 B.C. in the land you seem to refer to as Palestine. I'm well aware of the history of Israel and its location. The land of Judah and Jerusalem the city of David have changed a lot in 2000 years.
the history of Israel (as we know it today) goes back to to 1948, that's about it. the "kingdom of israel" you speak of has nothing to do with the current Israel. that land has been called Palestine and under islamic rule since the year 630 until the early 20th century (roughly 1400 years), that's when the European colonists came in and later decided to install a Jewish state right in the middle of Palestine. but back to the topic of this thread, the people who look the most like Jesus today are Middle easterns as a poster already suggested. So basically the only churches that get the depiction of Jesus somewhat accurately are the Orthodox ones in the middle east
these good times references always bring to mind one of the most dramatic moments in television history: Spoiler <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xKUwcCp7LPE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xKUwcCp7LPE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Why are they getting it wrong? Is it basically an ugly, unspoken truth that a predominantly white congregation in Kansas isn't going to kneel in prayer before a mural of a Middle Eastern looking Jesus and proclaim him their lord and savior?
Of course it does. It's the same place. You know...Bethlehem, Jerusalem and the Sea of Galilee? Yes, Jesus looked like the native Judeans living in the land of Israel 2000 years ago.
what on earth are you referring to? your seething hate for white people is tiresome. if you are that worried about a predominately white congregation in Kansas, then go to Kansas and pitch your sale of what color Jesus SHOULD be depicted as. again.......Jesus' race is the least important of his attributes.
You may want to challenge the legitimacy of the documents, but most scholars credit the books of the Gospel to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You are aware of this, aren't you? wiki. Scholars variously assess the consensus or majority view as follows: Mark: c. 68–73,[13] c 65-70[2] Matthew: c. 70–100.[13] c 80-85.[2] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written. Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[13], c 80-85[2] John: c 90-100,[2] c. 90–110,[14] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition. Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65.[citation needed] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis): Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s Matthew: c. 50 to 70s Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70
Maybe so. But if Jesus was depicted as black or brown it would have been a lot harder for Christian whites to have discriminated against blacks in this country for so many years.
If Jesus were depicted as black, I doubt Christianity would even have spread the way it did in Europe... if at all. I dont know about you, but I'm not worshipping a block head Jesus, the kind Ottomaton posted
okay... it's Jesus' fault that black people are discriminated, or the perception of his skin color rather.... I get it....it's a conspiracy by the white man, to oppress blacks. yawn.....I'm gonna go crush a Big Mac, drink a beer and play some Hank Williams Jr. g'night.
