A White Jesus? + Ignorant Christians

[Mahatma]

I am wondering if anyone who is Christian here actually has a realistic picture of Jesus.

 

In all the pictures I see, Jesus is white. I don't know how many of you have been to the middle east, but those people do not really have white skin. In fact, a realistic version of Jesus would probably turn off many people because of this whole "War on Terrorism" thing.

 

Anyways...

 

My biggest problem with Christianity is the ambiguity and ignorance many believers seem to have. Text can be taken almost any way, and in the worst of cases it is taken completely literally.

 

I think religion is wonderful, and everyone should realize that the possibility of something greater than us is far to great to ignore. However, why must many people blindly follow?

 

For a while, I had this belief that most Christian believers were idiots. In fact, the majority of Christians I meet are pretty ignorant.

 

...Then I came to the realization that it was just that the majority of people were idiots and ignorant, and it had nothing to do with Christianity at all.

 

 

 

Anyway... do any of you actually have a realistic picture of Jesus in your house? How many of you have a white Jesus hanging on your wall?

[Posco_Proudfoot]

It never mattered to me what color Jesus was. It was WHO he was and WHAT he did that was important.

[Mahatma]

It never mattered to me what color Jesus was. It was WHO he was and WHAT he did that was important.

 

I did not ask if it mattered to you. Do you display a picture of Jesus in his westernized form?

[JamesM]

 

Anyway... do any of you actually have a realistic picture of Jesus in your house? How many of you have a white Jesus hanging on your wall?

 

I have no pictures of Jesus in my house, because as you so aptly pointed out, no one knows what Jesus looked like. And He certainly did not look like what many paintings show Him as.

 

He was not white. And according to what the Bible says in a number of places, He was not a beautiful looking person either. There was certainly no glow behind His head. If He was as He is depicted in the western world, then He would have obviously been someone who was special in some way. Yet He wasn't. And He would have looked like a foreigner in Jerusalem.

 

Prophecies of Him stated that He was not beautiful...read Isaiah 53:1.

 

“Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

Ironically, most people have actually heard this at some time in their lives, but they would much rather cling to a God of their own making...which includes a beautiful Jesus. The idea that He might have appeared as less than handsome seems abhorrent to many so-called Christians.

 

However, for those who have learned of what He did on the cross personally and have had it applied to their own misery and sins, His beauty cannot be compared to any other. What He did makes Him wonderful beyond all comprehension.

[Mahatma]

What a perfect response JamesM.

 

As a person who is not Christian, the reason why non-Christians view Christians so negatively is because of all the ignorant believers that smudge the good name of religion.

[Posco_Proudfoot]

I did not ask if it mattered to you. Do you display a picture of Jesus in his westernized form?

I don't have pictures in the house of Jesus, but knew where the thread was going (Anti-Christian). The Whie US has their view, Italian US have their view, hispanic US have even another view. It's been that way since, well, since as far back as anyone knows about it. Eye of the beholder.

[amaysngrace]

As a person who is not Christian, the reason why non-Christians view Christians so negatively is because of all the ignorant believers that smudge the good name of religion.

 

Christianity isn't really a religion, it's a belief.

[Mahatma]

Christianity isn't really a religion, it's a belief.

 

I used both terms in my post. Should you look up "World religions," you would find Christianity. Should you look up Christianity, you would find that it is called a religion.

 

It can also be a "way of life."

 

----------------------------------------

 

 

This thread is not anti-christian. It is anti-ignorance. I believe I could have a conversation with JamesM about religion and not get into a heated argument.

[amaysngrace]

I used both terms in my post.

 

----------------------------------------

 

 

This thread is not anti-christian. It is anti-ignorance. I believe I could have a conversation with JamesM about religion and not get into a heated argument.

 

I was trying to enlighten you so you didn't mistake Christianity as being a religion. Which I had gotten from your reply. If you want a one on one conversation with someone then the best thing for you to do is PM that person. Otherwise realize this board is intended for everyone.

 

Have a nice day.

[Mahatma]

I was trying to enlighten you so you didn't mistake Christianity as being a religion. Which I had gotten from your reply. If you want a one on one conversation with someone then the best thing for you to do is PM that person. Otherwise realize this board is intended for everyone.

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

Um... apparently you are anti-non Christians.

 

I did not ask to have a one on one with anyone. I mentioned that it would be possible for me and JamesM to get along because I am not anti-Christian and he does not seem ignorant. I was simply stating one of the many reasons Christians and religious people are viewed as ignorant, and wished to spur a discussion on it. That is what these boards are for right? Discussion? Can I post here?

 

You have a nice day too.

 

PS: You failed to "enlighten" me.

 

Chris⋅ti⋅an⋅i⋅ty

 

–noun, plural -ties. 1. the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern

[amaysngrace]

Um... apparently you are anti-non Christians.

 

I am? Nope. Wrong answer. But good try though.

[Mahatma]

I am? Nope. Wrong answer. But good try though.

 

I am going to go ahead and let this go. Clearly you are going to be put in my "intolerant Christians" category.

 

*insert smiley here*

[Diamonds&Rust]

I think people compelled to have a "picture" of Jesus won't really care about its authenticity. Are you marketing ethnically correct pictures or something?

 

Where would one even go about finding these brown Jesus photos...

[amaysngrace]

I'm not an intolerant Christian. That's a terrible thing to say.

 

I was just trying to tell you that Christianity and religion are two different things. Christianity is much bigger than religion. It's a belief.

 

You can be Christian without being Catholic but you cannot be Catholic without being Christian. Same with all religions.

 

They are two different things. Christianity is based on the Bible. Religion is man's interpretation of the bible.

 

Christianity is bigger than religion. Christianity comes first. That's all I was trying to say.

[quankanne]

I've got some holy cards and a couple of images of the Sacred Heart of Jesus featuring Jesus, traditional stuff that depict him as fairer skinned, light brown hair and greenish-greyish-brownish eyes. However, most of my religious art is of Mary in her various apparitions, including Our Lady of Guadalupe, who is much beloved by Mexicans because that marked the first time she appeared to her people in indigenous form. Because as Posco points out, different ethnic groups have their view of what Jesus and Mary and the saints look like ... my guess is that depictions of the Holy Spirit are about the only "universal" one, that of a dove, usually descending.

 

for the most part, I don't take offense that most of the classic religious art depicting Christ Anglicizes him ... I'm just happy that there are tasteful interpretations of the guy, and really enjoy those that make good use of color in its richness and depth.

[LucreziaBorgia]

I like the highly idealized portraits of Jesus that you see in Mexican Catholic art. Then again, I like all of the Mexican Catholic artwork. The colors, the soft shapes, etc.

 

The real Jesus? No one knows really. One can only speculate based on his origins, his people, etc. Is he white, black, tan, brown? He is whatever people need him to be, I guess - as is the case with any deity.

[Geishawhelk]

I think if we try to categorise people, then we practice separation.

I used to go to a Roman Catholic Convent, and one of the Pupils to join us, when I had been there about 2 years, was a young girl who had won a scholarship, in her native Ghana.

She brought with her, an illustrated Bible, in which Jesus was depicted as a black African. Mary too was black, and dressed in typically African clothes.

In fact, all the illustrations, whether depictions of events in the Old or New testament, depicted all people as black.

 

This came as more of a shock to the Spanish-Order nuns, than it did to me.

They didn't quite know where to put themselves..... all the statues and depictions of Jesus, Mary and the saints, in the convent were most definitely caucasian.

There was nothing they could admonish, reproach or even discuss with this girl, because it became lucidly clear to them, that all these effigies and pictures, in the Convent, were just as inaccurate as they felt the illustrations in her Bible were.

of course, she could not connect all these western images of Jesus et al, with her impressions, either.

 

I have, as my primary Guide and mentor, the Buddha.

Goodness knows what he actually looked like!

Even the statues, pictures and effigies of him that exist now, are widely known and acknowledged to be mere expressions or representations of him, and No Buddhist is under any illusions that any of these are direct or accurate likenesses and portraits....

They're just representations, that's all. In fact, he actively discouraged such things because he himself refused to be seen, perceived or taken as an object or person of worship.

 

When push comes to shove, imagery is in the heart.

Whatever you hold in your heart, mind and soul, is correct.

Whatever works for you, and benefits your practice, is what you should adhere to.

Picures and statuettes should be there as a mere impression upon which to fix your attention, not as an object or likeness for reverence, itself.

[Dexter Morgan]

I don't think the true intent of this thread is to get people to think about the color of Jesus' skin, but rather to stir the s##t by calling Christians ignorant.

[donnamaybe]

I don't think the true intent of this thread is to get people to think about the color of Jesus' skin, but rather to stir the s##t by calling Christians ignorant.

 

Yuppers. And judging by the turn the thread took when someone actually had an opposing viewpoint, you're right.

[Moose]

I have no pictures of Jesus in my house, because as you so aptly pointed out, no one knows what Jesus looked like. And He certainly did not look like what many paintings show Him as.

 

He was not white. And according to what the Bible says in a number of places, He was not a beautiful looking person either. There was certainly no glow behind His head. If He was as He is depicted in the western world, then He would have obviously been someone who was special in some way. Yet He wasn't. And He would have looked like a foreigner in Jerusalem.

 

Prophecies of Him stated that He was not beautiful...read Isaiah 53:1.

 

“Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

Ironically, most people have actually heard this at some time in their lives, but they would much rather cling to a God of their own making...which includes a beautiful Jesus. The idea that He might have appeared as less than handsome seems abhorrent to many so-called Christians.

 

However, for those who have learned of what He did on the cross personally and have had it applied to their own misery and sins, His beauty cannot be compared to any other. What He did makes Him wonderful beyond all comprehension.

I'd be careful how you take this portion of Scripture. What you've bolded simply means that Christ came to this Earth like any other man.

 

That is to say, at first glance there wouldn't be anything attractive about Him, being merely in human form. There wouldn't be any, "Special Attribute" about Him that would automatically clue you that He ALWAYS existed and Is the True Son of God, the all knowing part of the Trinity.

 

This portion of Scripture has nothing to do with His PHYSICAL attributes.

 

No, cameras didn't exist in Christ's time, there were drawings done, but nothing that I would consider accurate.

 

All we can go on is what we know, one thing is, Mary recieved the, "seed" from the Holy Spirit, from what ethnic group did the Holy Spirit come from? We can't answer that....

 

Then look at the era, the time frame in which He walked the Earth, and so on.....

 

I do have, "renderings" of what represents Christ in my house, but I by no means know what He actually looks like.

[JamesM]

That is to say, at first glance there wouldn't be anything attractive about Him, being merely in human form. There wouldn't be any, "Special Attribute" about Him that would automatically clue you that He ALWAYS existed and Is the True Son of God, the all knowing part of the Trinity.

 

This portion of Scripture has nothing to do with His PHYSICAL attributes.

 

From what I have learned this means that He was ordinary outwardly and personality wise. It does mean that He in no way appeared to be the Son of God. In no way did He look as if He was the Messiah. It was clear from how most people responded to Him that He actually came across as a man who (in their minds) pretended to be a prophet of God.

 

While this does not mean He was ugly, it simply means that He fit with the crowd. Physically He looked like one of the other Jews. And even though He drew many people to listen to Him, it was not because He stood out as some magnetic Messiah figure...even though He was one...or shall I say He was The One.

 

And by themselves, people had no extra desire to come to Him. It was not because of His piercing or gentle eyes. It was not because of His charismatic speech or smile. It was not because He looked handsome. He was ordinary.

 

The reason people came to Jesus was because the Holy Spirit drew them to Him.

[Jake Barnes]

I did not ask if it mattered to you. Do you display a picture of Jesus in his westernized form?

I have a picture of Jesus. He is white as a viking and his gaze strikes fear in the savage races

[Moose]

From what I have learned this means that He was ordinary outwardly and personality wise. It does mean that He in no way appeared to be the Son of God. In no way did He look as if He was the Messiah. It was clear from how most people responded to Him that He actually came across as a man who (in their minds) pretended to be a prophet of God.

 

While this does not mean He was ugly, it simply means that He fit with the crowd. Physically He looked like one of the other Jews. And even though He drew many people to listen to Him, it was not because He stood out as some magnetic Messiah figure...even though He was one...or shall I say He was The One.

 

And by themselves, people had no extra desire to come to Him. It was not because of His piercing or gentle eyes. It was not because of His charismatic speech or smile. It was not because He looked handsome. He was ordinary.

 

The reason people came to Jesus was because the Holy Spirit drew them to Him.

That's a little better. It's also a far cry from what you posted earlier;

He was not a beautiful looking person either. Prophecies of Him stated that He was not beautiful...read Isaiah 53:1.

I think we need to be careful what we say to others and not confuse them with Scripture, UNLESS you explain it fully.

 

Jesus is perfect in everyway possible. That includes His physical body. He may not of, "stood" out of the crowd, but that by no means proves He wasn't a handsome man.....while in human form. One other comment, you keep saying;

He was ordinary/He was the Messiah/While this does not mean He was ugly/He looked like one of the other Jews./even though He was one...or shall I say He was The One./He was ordinary.

Please be careful. He IS, and will always BE.

[donnamaybe]

I think James was using the word "was" as in "when he was on the earth in the image of a man," which he no longer is.

[JamesM]

My point before was that He was not handsome nor beautiful. He was ordinary. We know that Jesus had the ability to blend into a crowd and disappear. That might suggest that Jesus wasn't noticeably ugly, but also not handsome to the point where he drew attention to himself. Other than that, it's really speculation.

 

This does not mean He was genetically defective nor somehow a deformed man. Quite the opposite from either extreme. He was ordinary. He was not beautiful, nor was He ugly. If He was genetically deformed somehow, then this would mean that He would stand out in a crowd physically somehow.

 

And my referencing "was" is to when He WAS on earth. Now He is glorified and I would not want to say that His future physical body that every eye shall see will be the same as His physical body was on earth. It will be a glorified version of that body.

 

 

Jesus is perfect in every way possible. That includes His physical body. He may not of, "stood" out of the crowd, but that by no means proves He wasn't a handsome man.....while in human form.

 

While I see what you are saying, I respectfully disagree. I am open to some verses in the Bible that say His physical body was perfect while He was here on earth. My position did not change....maybe it was better explained. The Bible does not say what He looked like, but if we look at Isaiah and see the prophecy as stated, then we see that Isaiah is saying that when Jesus comes, there will be no way to distinguish Him from any other person. In fact, "when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him."

 

Was He handsome? It is hard to say, but if we see that He had nothing that made the people desire Him, then one would be inclined to believe that His outward appearance was not physically handsome to most of those around Him at the time.

 

One other comment, you keep saying;Please be careful. He IS, and will always BE.

 

As donnamaybe noted, my reference was to when He was on earth. He is now in heaven and can never be compared to any man who was or every shall be.

 

I am willing to guess that we agree more than disagree.

 

Personally, I cannot have a picture of Jesus because this focuses me on a physical representation that in many cases is not even close to what the reality may be. I think we would better serve ourselves and our children by having a picture of an ordinary Jew from that time. This would at least give us a better representation of Him.

 

His physical body is not to be worshiped or represented IMO as it is not who He really is. By making pictures of Jesus, we can lose focus of this. Many people glorify Jesus by the image they have of Him physically, and lose sight of what He has become spiritually.

 

As one person said when asked what Jesus looked like physically, "What difference does or would it make for my eternal salvation? What difference would it make for the awesome Gift that He gave me?"