Its interesting you mention that because depictions of the Buddha have varied widely with Chinese giving him Chinese features and the Khmer giving him Khmer features.
What a stupid reply. Not a single part of it had anything to do with my post. Are you denying that a lot of white Americans treated blacks badly in this country for a lot of years? All I said was that, if Jesus was depicted as black, the white Americans that identified as Christians would have had a hard time participating in that discrimination.
I guess a large portion of the Israeli Jewish population has 2,000 years of diaspora and interracial breeding to account for; until Ytzhak Rabin, the first few Israeli Prime Ministers weren't even native-born. If Jesus did exist, he probably looked like a modern Palestinian. There's been a lot of beautiful art (and one good music video) made with white and black Jesuses, but any genuine belief that he was either of those races seems naive and biased. I for one doubt an individual Jesus existed, I think he was just an amalgam of dissident Jewish priests of the time. I also think a certain portion of historians doubt his existence. But they also accept that he's the single most important figure, real or otherwise, in Western history, so it'd be really irresponsible (for them) to claim he didn't exist unless they could somehow prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
If Jesus was a black man, we would have picked a different story to believe in I think. This is "Jesus". Did Christian Jesus ride dinos? That is pretty cool atleast...
Well, he did spend a lot of time in the sun so I'm sure he had a good tan working, unless he was like I am..I just turn red so I stay away from the sun.
I suppose I should have specified that I meant non-Biblical sources. I thought that was implied. My bad.
I have read that the Chinese have kind of intertwined their own traditions into Buddhism, myths and stories and such, but I had not seen any actual depictions of Buddhas as Chinese. That is interesting. I suppose my title here is off, Jesus's color or Buddha's race for that matter is not as important as why a group of people, white, black or Chinese, would intentionally get it wrong. Have these wrongful depictions served to make Christianity more popular than it would be otherwise? Would white Europeans as widely accept a Middle Eastern Jesus or the Chinese as widely accept an Indian Buddha?
When do non-Biblical sources say the Gospels were written? I think most historians conclude that they were written at this time. They take a large spectrum of archaeological research into account, including the history of Rome, the Levant, North Africa, The British Isles, etc. in order to come to this consensus.
Consider that Buddhism started in Northern India and Siddartha is supposed to be a prince of a Northern Indian clan here is what he looks like in one of the earliest depictions from Northern India Here is how he is depicted in China In Khmer (Cambodia) Each culture adapts the Buddha to their own cultural image. I don't think this is intentional as much as its the cultural adaption but also the knowledge base of what the artists are working off of. Medieval European artists are most familiar with Medieval European faces and will likely render Jesus as Medieval European.
jesus comes in all shapes, sizes Spoiler and colors Spoiler . there is only one Brian, however. Spoiler
The area has been under the control of the British, or the Ottoman Empire, or the Crusader States, or the Arab Caliphates, or the Byzantine Empire, or the Roman Empire, for thousands of years. The European colonial powers took over the role from the many, many powers that controlled it previously. There's as much validity to the word "Israel" as there is to the idea of "Palestine".
