Why isnt Jesus, an Arab?

From what I remember in art history class the Romans gave us our present day painted version of Christ (the way we see him portrayed in most classic paintings and such).

Originally posted by Implosion
Taken in this context, I fail to see how appearance becomes important.

Let me elaborate a bit. I am not questioning the teachings of Jesus at all. I am merely stating that symbols play an important part in the minds of people.

Symbols are incredibly important. Every advertising agency in the world knows it. We even protect company logos by law. Show almost any 6 year old in the US a Nike "swoosh" or a Coca-Cola "ribbon" and they will immediately recognize what product it represents.

Many traffic signs have no printed words. We know what the symbols mean.

There are entire fields of study devoted to the way symbols affect people once the symbols become internalized.

A large portion of the population have a visual learning style. They gather and internalize more information through visual means than through other senses such as hearing or touch.

I would also like to point out how many white supremist claim they are doing the "Lord's work" when they act out with hate toward people who have dark skin.

It was once a popular theory that the "mark" GOD placed on Cain was that he turned him into a "black man."

I think that the above two atrocities would have been much less likely if the general public in the US had been conditioned (through symbolism) to see Jesus as having dark skin.

Symbols really do matter - and a blond haired, blue eyed, white Jesus is indeed a symbol.

What would happen if you hung an inverted pentacle in a Baptist church?
How do you think most people feel when they see a Swastika? Symbols matter. This is why we in the US consistently portray Jesus as white.

It has been proven that to a vast number of people:

White=good.
Dark=bad.

It's a genuine shame that the story of the Good Samaritan doesn't not seem to override this.

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
Symbols really do matter

You are of course, completely correct. I just love playing devil's advocate, if you'll pardon the expression.

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
I think his appearance is completely relevant.

Consider a few hypothetical examples:

If Jesus had been black and had always been pictured that way, do you think that African-Americans would have suffered so much violence and segregation in the US? Would there have had to be a civil rights movement at all?

If Jesus had been Arabic and had always been pictured that way, do you think we would handle Iraq the same way we are now? Would we have tortured the detainees at Guantanamo?

Jesus' message was indeed important, but a stained-glass picture could be worth a thousand messages.

Considering the powers that be dont believe in Jesus or that he was the savior, He played no part in any of the aformentioned, to them. However if Jesus' word was followed then none of that would have happened. As we know very few of his flock take his word very seriously unless their on their death bed. You can take the events of this age as fact of that.
I think as to the point of white/black Jesus, it just has signifigance in that you can reach people easier if they can relate on a cultural level and people always relate to someone of their ethnic group first. Jesus probably became white when the romans were trying to convert the germanic tribes who were of nordic descent. Logically if Jesus was prtrayed to them as a black man none would convert and the same goes for say somalia if Jesus was portrayed as a white man none would convert.

This whole black/ white issue seems to be getting into every damn argument. It really disgust me frankly that we as a people cant see the big picture. Every racial group on this earth has been slaves and had horrible conditions thrust on them by the ruling elite at their respective times. From the Hebrews to the egyptians to the germanic tribes during the roman times to the native americans during the spanish conquest to the africans during americas founding to the various groups that hitler felt were unworthy to everyone indebted to citibank. I can see how the issue is so powerful for africans as their slavery recently ended. But sadly while we are crying about who's right and who's wrong slavery is rearing its ugly head again and this time race plays no issue, it's simply the haves' vs. the have nots' the rich vs. the poor.

I don't really know what ya'll are talkin bout. I'm pretty sure Jesus was a red-blooded American. A Protestant. And Republican.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
whats with all the whiteskinnned portraits?

My view is that, as Rome became the main centre of Christianity (which developed into Cathlocism) and ancient Palestine was lost to the Persians (I think) the image of Jesus became a 'composite' of desirable Greco-Roman features, who constituted the majority of Chrisitians.

The Crusades would have further cemented this mentality. I mean, wouldn't it be a conflict of interest if the Crusader's 'god' looked like the evil Arabic Termagant-worshipping natives?

Also, wouldn't it look hypocritical if the god of the European missionaries looked more like the natives than the invaders? If Jesus appeared more 'black' than white history may have taken an entirely different approach to African slavery.

Jesus is a black woman....Jesus was from the area but was not arabic, he was raised in a jewish society.

Exactly,

So obviously, IF it is true, then religion and the message we are meant to focus on, doesnt mean anything to the origins of the very religion we speak.

They cared more for the appearence of the 'christ' we are following, than the purpose 'christ' put forward.

As mentioned on the first page, there are original works in the catacombs of rome that resemble a dark skinned/featured jesus.

Could that be why Mary was always said to of had immaculate conception?
Is there a chance, his father was a common day palestinian? thus he resembled such?

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by wellwhatnow

Symbols really do matter - and a blond haired, blue eyed, white Jesus is indeed a symbol.

Well I have never seen a blonde haired, blue eyed Jesus portrait. I think you are trying to be too politically correct. I question, when so many people make a mockery of christianity, what the motivation behind trying to change the racial identity of Jesus Christ from Hebrew to Arab to African. Stop being so damn politically correct.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Well I have never seen a blonde haired, blue eyed Jesus portrait.

You have now, no need to thank me.



[edit on 4/2/07 by Implosion]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Could that be why Mary was always said to of had immaculate conception?
Is there a chance, his father was a common day palestinian? thus he resembled such?

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]

you need to read up on your history. Your applying present day problems to a historical event. I dont think their were Plaestinians in the way you know them today occupying Israel. It was mostly the Jews living there at the time.

Originally posted by Implosion

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Well I have never seen a blonde haired, blue eyed Jesus portrait.

You have now, no need to thank me.

[edit on 4/2/07 by Implosion]

Looks red haired to me, .

I think the New Testament and the other associated texts make it pretty clear that Jesus was an Egyptian Jew, born in Egypt, and who returned there with his family not long after the census was taken.

So in today's terms, he was partially an Egyptian Arab, but Jewish on his mother's side.

Some people have even suggested that through his father, he may have had some link of lineage from Cleopatra, and on his mother's side, lineage from David, giving him some possible legitimate claim to being king of both the Egyptians and the Jews. Not something the occupying Romans would want to have around, hence the political execution to thwart any kind of Egyptian-Jewish alliance that might lead to an insurgency.



[edit on 4-2-2007 by SuicideVirus]

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
I think the New Testament and the other associated texts make it pretty clear that Jesus was an Egyptian Jew, born in Egypt, and who returned
Some people have even suggested that through his father, he may have had some link of lineage from Cleopatra, and on his mother's side, lineage from David, giving him some possible legitimate claim to being king of both the Egyptians and the Jews. Not something the occupying Romans would want to have around, hence the political execution to thwart any kind of Egyptian-Jewish alliance that might lead to an insurgency.
[edit on 4-2-2007 by SuicideVirus]

Well you people do me a huge favor and READ your bible! The Romans didnt care what Jesus did! In fact pontius pilate sent jesus back to the governor saying, "he's of his race, let him handle him" so there ya go... he not only confirmed that he was Hebrew, he didnt care what they did with Jesus.


Also, Jesus was born in bethelem and spirited of to Egypt. Where the hell do you get the idea that he was egyptian?

[edit on 4-2-2007 by XphilesPhan]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
As mentioned on the first page, there are original works in the catacombs of rome that resemble a dark skinned/featured jesus.

I'm curious. Could you take us to the link that has pictures of this?

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
Not something the occupying Romans would want to have around, hence the political execution to thwart any kind of Egyptian-Jewish alliance that might lead to an insurgency.

You need to read the Gospels.
It wasn't so much the Romans that were out to rid the land of Jesus, it was His own people, the Jews (namely the Pharisees).

I've heard it claimed that the current version of Jesus is partly based on the portrait of King James (who commissioned the Bible translation.) The evidence for this is weak, though there may be some portraits that are based on James (because it was a popular thing for Renaissance artists to paint their patrons as saints or apostles.)

The earliest longhaired Jesus that I found so far is the Mandylion of Edessa -- and the clothing shown for Jesus is typical of that period (the ancient Hebrews didn't wear cottes and other clothes typical of Northern Europe around 500 AD) :
www.search.com...

A previous one in Ravenna in the 400's shows the still beardless figure.

He's still darkhaired in the 1500's, though we now see the "effeminite Jesus" face appearing (yes, it's technically called the "effeminite face" ... I didn't make that up.) :
members.aol.com...

media.popularmechanics.com...

And he does get blonde in the 1600's
www.iconsexplained.com...

By the 1700's, there are a number of images that would look familiar today.
nocommercialpotential.net...

So the drawings went with the hair and clothing styles that were popular at the time. Clothing styles were "fixed" by the Dark Ages, and the face and hairstyle and were pretty much a done deal by 500 AD. But the blondeness doesn't come until around the time of King James.

Well, it's all art, and without a model what's an artist to do but his own interpretation.

It's all good, and I'm sure it's all for a good cause in the end.

As far as I know, modern interpretations of the Jesus-concept are generally derived from the work of Michelangelo. He wasn't the first to portray Jesus in this style, but he's probably the most influential.

An ancient Roman coin depicts Christ's Afrikan identity
In the British Museum, an ancient gold coin shows Christ as an Afrikan with tightly curled, woolly hair and a cross behind him.3 This coin was minted under the second reign of Roman Emperor, Justinian II who ruled at two separate times, separated by ten years (685-695 and 705-711 A.D.). During his first reign, the gold coins he had minted depicted Christ as a straight-haired European. During his second reign, he had the Christ-image on the coin changed to an Africoid image in order to ensure that this depiction was more in keeping with the original traditions of the Byzantine Church,4 which commonly portrayed Jesus as an Afrikan. The obverse side of the coin shows Justinian with a cross behind him also. The Cambridge Encyclopedia wrote: "Whatever the fact, this coin places beyond dispute the belief that Jesus Christ was a Negro. The coin is otherwise of great historical interest, for it was the cause of a war between Justinian and Abdula Malik, 5th caliph of the Omniads, the former demanding tribute to be paid in these same coins and the latter refusing."

The infant God in the arms of his black mother, his eyes and drapery white, is himself perfectly black...the whiteness of the eyes and teeth, and the studied redness of the lips, are very observable."

suzar.com...

There's also a photo of the coin at the bottom, but i spose u need to see it in colour to appreciate the 'african' view.

Im also searching for some images from the catacombes of the first image of christ said to show darkskin, but no luck as of yet

But I have found some 'other' photos from the catacombes
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 4-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]