I have a friend who says Jesus was black. I don’t know where she get this and don’t want to get into it until I have a proper response. What would that proper response be???
Hmmmm. I would say maybe…what difference does it make?
We dont know for sure.
As said above, should it make a difference?
I always assumed because of the part of the world he was in he would looked like people in the middle east do. It has always annoyed me that actors who represent Jesus in movies have blue eyes and an english accent.
Back to your post… I don’t really think you have an argument because it really doesn’t tell us in the Bible (if it does let me know–I haven’t seen it) so I say she can believe what she wants because like other posters have stated…it doesn’t matter.
Jesus was of the tribe of Judah.
Well I always perferred the Jesus in the Movies, blue eyes and long brown hair and a goatee but, then again I just liked having people tell me how much I look like him. Though I think he should have a german accent.
shrug Who cares?
[quote=epr1993]shrug Who cares?
I care. I like being told I look like Jeus. Makes me feel better.
Well, Jesus could have been. I mean, if his tribe was from Ethiopia or of some sort, although asides from Rastafarianism, Jesus to me looks like any Mediterranean person; lightish-darkish brown eyes, olive-to-dark skin, dark brown hair…
It would be nice to see a movie that depicted Jesus as black, speaking Aramaic. It would rock my world ;).
I find that people who say that are liberals who get a rise out of making white conservatives shutter. Part of it might be to conteract racism, but I think it’s more about challenging our perception of Christ. People I know who tell me Jesus was black usually follow it by saying he was a liberal and socialist, as if to say, “you’re not living in Jesus example and my values are closer to what he really meant than yours.” It as if challenging how he is portrayed on a stained glass window is meant to challenge everything else we think we know about him. (?) Black is a more “shocking” way of saying, he wasn’t white like you make him look, meaning you know your traditions don’t tell us what Jesus was really like.
I don’t argue with these people. Christ is portrayed in different cultures in different ways. He usually assumes the race of the people viewing him, since it’s easier for people to identify with him if he doesn’t take on a foreign character. I’ve seen some portrayals of Christ that are supposed to be what he really looked like. Not only is this insignificant, it stands in the way of our understanding of him. In white parishes, the traditional white portrayal of Christ in stained glass shows us how he was like us, the people in the parish, while a portrayal of him as some foreign race reconstructed from burial remains in Palestine, though perhaps historically accurate, emphasizes his differences and veils a deeper theological connection we would have with him if he were shown like us, humble men. When you put the biblical stories in a familar western setting, the meaning of the Gospels becomes even more apparent since it’s not hidden behind unfamiliar and insignificant historical details, like what clothes Jesus wore or what color his skin was.
[quote=epr1993]shrug Who cares?
Montie, you look just like Jesus. So do you Brain.
Didn’t Our Lady appear Mexican to St Juan Diego? Maybe Our Lord would do the same if He appeard to one of us.
What did Christ look like? Well in Genesis 1:26 we learn that we are created in the image of God. “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” So if it’s really important to know what Christ looks like…look in the mirror…but don’t look at the face…look at the heart. If you don’t see Christ there, perhaps you have greater concerns than His physical appearance.
[quote=Lillith]Hmmmm. I would say maybe…what difference does it make?
I’m so happy I clicked on this thread and your post was the first answer I read!
Most regretably in modern times certain social theories have been created that though not based on any facts are pushed by many on the left. One is " Victimhood " certain gropps are permanent victims and must be treated that way.Being victims theyof course suffer from a lack of self esteem so anything no matter how untrue can be used to prop up there lack of self esteem. Even in the Catholic church this idea has advocates. My Old parish was in an Irish neighborhood,even so the rectory walls were decorated with a variety of Saints and holy pictures, Saint Rose of Lima, saint Martin de pores, Saint Patrick, a variety of Saints. On a recent visit there was a major change, no none black saints were displayed, even the corpus on the cucifix was black. The neighborhood has become black thats true. This theory is besides stupid,insulting to black people yet many liberals support it. Jesus Christ was Jewish ! the only black Jews ever found were living in Ethiopia. Jews on the whole are not black !
[quote=JOHNYJ]Most regretably in modern times certain social theories have been created that though not based on any facts are pushed by many on the left. One is " Victimhood " certain gropps are permanent victims and must be treated that way.Being victims theyof course suffer from a lack of self esteem so anything no matter how untrue can be used to prop up there lack of self esteem. Even in the Catholic church this idea has advocates. My Old parish was in an Irish neighborhood,even so the rectory walls were decorated with a variety of Saints and holy pictures, Saint Rose of Lima, saint Martin de pores, Saint Patrick, a variety of Saints. On a recent visit there was a major change, no none black saints were dis[played, even the corpus on the cucifix was black. The neighborhood has become black thats true. This theory is besides stupid,insulting to black people yet many liberals support it. Jesus Christ was Jewish ! the only black Jews ever found were living in Ethiopia. Jews on the whole are not black !
I didn’t mean to give the impression that it really mattered to me. However, I do get the feeling she’s just saying this to challenge my beliefs (she doesn’t believe in the virgin birth or in the divinity of Jesus, to name just a couple of things). So, no I don’t care - I just don’t appreciate her motives and I guess I’m afraid I’ll say something inappropriate.
Plus, I’ve always agreed with JohnyJ above, that Jesus looked like a Jew from the Middle East. I’ve never heard anything about there being black Jews in the Holy Land during the time of Jesus’ life, so it does go against what I’ve always thought.
mcliffor is right though - it’s a waste of time to argue with these people. Especiallly when they don’t really want a discussion, but only to make you uncomfortable.
Jesus was not black. Anyone who tells you that is subverting our holy religion or their religion for the sake of some political agenda. Religion and certainly not Jesus shouldn’t be used for the advantage of some social or political agenda. Jesus should be loved in his own right, not for what good He may do for us or for our pet political agenda.
In approved apparitions, Jesus is always non-black – including if I am not mistaken, in an apparition to a black African, so I don’t think it’s just a case of “divine condescension”
Much was written about this particular topic when Mel Gibson’s movie ‘The Passion’ was released.
A NYTimes article said
The title role is played by Jim Caviezel, a dark-haired, blue-eyed star whose brooding good looks have been compared to those of Montgomery Clift. He doesn’t exactly fit the archaeological evidence that the average man of Jesus’ day was about 5 feet 3 inches tall and a bantamlike 110 pounds. Given the harsh conditions, especially for working stiffs like the members of Jesus’ family, combined with Jesus’ ascetic lifestyle, which included walking everywhere, scholars agree that he was most likely a rather sinewy peasant, as tough as a root and about as appealing.
Beliefnet has this pictorial tour of images of Jesus through two millennia.
Personally, I image he looked much like the average man in the time/place in which he lived.
The prophet Isaiah confirms His ordinary appearance -
“He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we esteemed Him not. Surely He took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered Him stricken by God, smitten by Him, and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:2-5)
[quote=epr1993]shrug Who cares?
Agreed. It’s not a big deal either way.
The Church Fathers do not interpret that passage in that way. They (in general–there may have been an exception) interpret it to be a description of his crucified state on the Cross.
Their interpretation also seems to me the most reasonable.
They also say that Jesus was a handsome man, though of course fully human-looking as he is fully human.