Having images of Jesus is more of a Catholic/Orthodox thing. Protestants, for the most part, seem to try to refrain from using any image of him, even avoiding putting a figure on a crucifix. It strikes me as inaccurate to imply that WASPs in this country intentionally make him white when they avoid drawing him at all. Even Catholics, more recently, avoid white Jesus in my experience. The classic Jesus image remains in pop culture for exactly the reason my wife pointed out -- as shorthand, so everyone knows it is a reference to Jesus. The Jesus riding a dinosaur image wouldn't work if it didn't conform with the sterotype. But, that's for jokes. It's much harder to employ that image for anything serious.
Isn't this scientifically impossible to answer since, umm, he has no human father? Also, his mother's ethnicity was one where she could be anywhere from white to middle eastern looking, but I don't know how black comes into the equation? I think it's fair to say that, if you assume that there is no human father in the equation, then anything is possible.
Oh and I don't know if this would interest anyone, but in Islamic tradition, Jesus PBUH is white. This is accepted because, well, we don't know the other half of his DNA. I've never heard of or seen a Middle Eastern depiction of Jesus PBUH. On the other hand, some claim that Muhammad PBUH was white as well. Many find that hard to believe (I definitely find it hard to believe), but it is a more valid dispute since family trees are sacred (before Islam) and so there's a great deal of history which gives a lot of clues. This is besides the fact that Muhammad PBUH was 1500 years ago, whereas Jesus PBUH was way before that.
No one really knows but the best bet would be that he is of Arab/Jewish descent much like the people of Israel/Palestine.
I think that in about another 1000 years, it probably won't matter I'm afraid. Current religions will be just the last few chapters of an Ancient Mythology course taught at universities.
Black comes into the equation because the Hebrew people were enslaved in Africa for 400 years. At the time of King Solomon around 950 B.C., the Queen of Sheeba traveled to Jerusalem in a caravan to bring gold for the temple and to learn of his wisdom. You can read much of Ethiopia in the Bible and there were, of course, Ethiopians living in Jerusalem since Jethro, a black Midianite from Ethiopia and the father-in-law of Moses, fled from egypt alongside the Hebrews during the Exodus. Yes, Moses' wife was African. You can read all about this in the Old Testament and the Torah. Hebrew, by definition, means a mixed breed. Hence, the root of the words hybrid and brew , meaning a mix. If anyone is interested, I have a close friend who has written a book that researches this subject along with a lot of other information. I must say...some of the research is fascinating. Check it out if you wish. www.thetruelovemessiah.com
Just curious but since Islam has strictures against idolatry would it be a sin for a Muslim to make a depiction of Jesus or any other prophet?
Historically, you are right, but I would say way off base for the current US protestants. Yes, they only do crosses and not crucifixes but there is so much protestant Jesus imagery out there these days. Not necessarily in places of worship, but certainly for home and private usage. After crucufixes, the main way to tell a heavily Catholic house vs heavily pentecostal, Baptist, etc. would be Virgin Mary imagery. Also, the reason the imagery of Jesus (starting in ~230 at Dura Europos) is not personally accurate is because Christians first had to use symbols (lamb, shepherd, Hellenistic philospher) because it was still underground. Then when Constantine made Christianity the next big thing, the iconography became imperial Roman. Thus, actual physical representations of Jesus were European and that would continue until the 20th century when images started becoming more diverse but still mostly white.
Most scholars believe Jesus died around 36AD or earlier. Why do written accounts of a Messiah walking on water, curing the sick and resurrecting from the dead not appear before the dates you listed? I find it curious that such events would not be discussed until a decade or more after the crucifixion of Jesus.
Jesus was only half jewish, he was half god, so he probably at least resembled god. He probably looked like Tiger Woods.
They were not that organized and were an underground, illiterate subset. And of course, there were multiple competing messiah cults. Some Jesus, some others. There are also contradictory description of Roman historical figures in the gospels compared to other historical texts and records. Historical accounts are so iffy, though, because history was never really about accuracy until the 18th century. More interesting are Roman records of movements and actions at the various outposts.
How do the knowledgeable scholars think Mary was impregnated? Did god use his own sperm? Maybe he did conjure up some Caucasian sperm. Did Mary have both testes and ovaries? Would that be considered incest? If he only used her DNA wouldn't jesus be a girl?
Do you guys realize that only reason the "depictions" of Jesus have been consistently "anglo" is because the majority of them were painted during and post-renaissance? And then by the Europeans with the arts as a focus? There are also ancient portrayals of him in a "darker" skin tone... but it would make sense, common sense would tell you, that a western civilization, settled largely by Europeans, would by default bring their own depictions, or then make new versions based on the depictions they'd seen? I for one think he would look much like people that made up the cast of "The Nativity Story" more the Jim Caviezel in "The Passion of the Christ." <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G78OdmY32IM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G78OdmY32IM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> And interesting question to add to this discussion would be, "What percentage of Christians in the 2000s would be considered 'anglo' or 'white' compared to other ethinicities?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christian_distribution.png Remember, there are multiple races in every country.
Discussed? Sure they were discussed, talked about, attended and witnessed first-hand during the life and crucifixion of Jesus. Why do written accounts not appear in complete form before 10 years after the fact? To me, that seems a very short period of time. During those ten years most of the disciples and apostles were busy being beheaded, persecuted, stoned or crucified, themselves. Many pre-Christians or followers of Jesus fled from Judea and the controlling Roman Legion. After all, it was only 24 years after the crucifixion that the temple was destroyed. Soon after, Jews weren't even allowed in the city of Jerusalem and, eventually, Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the city Aelia Capitalolina or Palestine in 135 A.D.
Possibly with whites. I don't think a Jewish breakaway sect would have been the cultural backbone of White Europe for 1,800 years without taking its image and adopting every single one of its cultural traditions. I don't know if racial Jesus mattered to blacks; or if we just adopted Christianity because we were mixed and matched with all other different tribes and just decided to accept a well-organized and fully-formed faith that was already written from the perspective of enslaved or disenfranchised people.
