Jesus as a black man

[revert_jen]

Furthermore, the Catholic parish that is depicting Jesus as black, St. Sabina, was greatfly influenced by a pastor of a Baptist church; Jeremiah Wright.

Jesus was a poor black man:
metacafe.com/watch/1594786/jesus_was_a_poor_black_man_says_barack_obamas_pastor/

saintsabina.org/

I think it is a lack of reverence and a sacrilige to change the image of Our Lord according to our whims and desires and political inclinations.

OTOH, there is a big difference between depicting Jesus as of African origin and saying that he actually was of African origin. The fact that someone has decided to use a picture of Jesus as a man of African origin because they are trying to make some sort of misguided political statement, does not invalidate the use of various depictions of Jesus by Christians as an aid to piety. The problem here is using Jesus as a means to an end, rather than the ultimate End in Himself. It’s not the nature of the picture, but the use to which it is being put, which is the problem.

I looked at the links. The first is irrelevant as I think we all know that Pastor Wright has serious problems. The second, for St.Sabina’s, has way bigger problems than a depiction of Jesus as of African origin. The “About Us” statement was very troubling, and I don’t think “making history” is an appropriate primary aim for a Catholic parish, and you REALLY don’t want to get me started on the problems with Fr. Pfleger.

However, if you’ve never seen a picture of the child Jesus as blonde and blue-eyed (e.g. in pictures of the finding in the temple) I have one right in front of me from a rosary book that is, as far as I can tell, completely orthodox. In fact, I have a rosary book that was published by the Vatican Library that has Jesus as a reddish-blonde-haired child, although I can’t see the color of His eyes in the picture. In another rosary booklet (yes, I have rather a lot of them) the picture where Jesus is carrying the cross has Him looking blonde, and it is a “reproduction of the original mosaic at Lourdes” according to the picture credits in the book. (Actually, He appears to be blonde in all three of the 2nd-4th Sorrowful Mysteries, and a fair-skinned brown-haired man in the 1st and 5th).

It’s not more wrong to depict Jesus as African than to depict Him as northern European, since He was neither. I don’t see either as wrong at all–provided it is done as an aid to piety rather than a political statement, of course.

–Jen

 

[Abba]

It’s not more wrong to depict Jesus as African than to depict Him as northern European, since He was neither. I don’t see either as wrong at all–provided it is done as an aid to piety rather than a political statement, of course.

–Jen

Hello Jen,

The truth is that Holy Mother Church does not have the hang up of wanting to present Jesus of a race and of a color that he is not just to make him look good according to the definition of some people. Let us not forget that she is guided by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the saints that gave the description they gave, such as saint Faustina and Saint Margaret Mary did not lie. Jesus looked the way he looked and it a sacrilege to change his image. He left us his image, why should people want to make him look like someone he did not look like?

Insofar, as imagining Jesus in our heads the way we want to relate better to him. I do not agree with this mental process. I want to come to know Jesus as much as I can and because of this I will not make up an image of him in my mind that is different from the traditional image given to us by the Catholic Church.

When I was a little girl, my grandmother us to read to me the stories of the saints. In my childhood, my favorite saint was Saint Martin de Porres because he was so kind and would feed the mice of the field. Now, Saint Martin de Porres was dark skin, why would I want to image him being oriental or indian or anglo-saxon? He was and looked the way he did. Period. The same with Jesus. Period.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...75Il0o&t=1&usg=__ck4sNmEhkJypf9YoB7p1aZiW9aM=

Shroud of Turin
30s AD

http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/images/thumbnails/shroud_of_turin_negative.jpg
religionfacts.com/jesus/images/christ-and-apostles-catacomb-domitilla-c350-500.jpg

religionfacts.com/jesus/images/christ-and-apostles-catacomb-domitilla-c350-500.jpg
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/images/christ-and-apostles-catacomb-domitilla-c350-500.jpg
Mandylion of Edessa
30-40
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/images/mandylion-of-edessa-vatican-papal-chapel-med.jpg

Portrait,
Catacomb, Rome, 4th C
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/images/christ-catacomb2.JPG

More here: religionfacts.com/jesus/image_gallery.htm

It is when we get to the 20th century that people start portraying him as a black man for political reasons. That to me is unacceptable. We are not free to distort neither his teachings nor his image.

Peace,

Abba

 

[sojo]

Abba - you keep returning to the theme of sacrilege. I’m not a theology expert, so what exactly constitutes a sacrilege in the Catholic religion? I expect that it has a formal, canonical guideline somewhere? If Holy Mother Church, and the Pope haven’t declared it a sacrilege (or heresy… as I said, I’m not really conversant in the language of these things), than it isn’t. If the authority in this matter is from the Bishops, and the Bishop of the diocese OK’d the murals, then that’s that, right?

Depicting Christ as an black (from Africa) man may indeed be a political statement and therefore “distasteful” to some, it need not be sacrilegious. It bothers you (and I can appreciate that) and it provides comfort and conveys a sense of universality and unity to others.

And, based on my study of art history, anthropology, antiquities, archaeology, history, fine art and culture (areas in which I am much more conversant than theology), I sincerely doubt that even the early Byzantine paintings of Christ were necessarily any kind of true likeness.

Jen’s explanation seems more likely to me.

 

[revert_jen]

It is when we get to the 20th century that people start portraying him as a black man for political reasons. That to me is unacceptable. We are not free to distort neither his teachings nor his image.

When we got to about the 14th century, people were portraying Him as a fair-skinned blonde. That may have been partly for political reasons, as many laypeople (although NOT the Church herself) felt that Jewish people were evil, so maybe that is why painters portrayed Him as a northern European instead. Is that as unacceptable? If not, why not? (Note that I am not saying that that IS the reason Jesus was depicted that way, just that it MIGHT have been.)

Blessed Fra Angelico painted Jesus as blonde in “The Sermon on the Mount” painted between 1440-1452, and in a few other places that I am aware of. Simone Marini depicted Him with reddish-blonde hair in “The Holy Family after the Finding of Jesus in the Temple” in the first half of the 14th century. In Rafael’s “Transfiguration” He has medium-brown hair, and does not look anything like the image on the shroud of Turin or the Divine Mercy picture. (If you ever get a chance to see the “Transfiguration” in person, BTW, definitely do it. I have never seen a reprint that does it justice and it is really amazing.) Jesus is also portrayed as blonde in Masaccio’s “The Crucifixion” in 1426.

All of these artworks are used as illustrations in my rosary booklet that is put out by the Vatican Press. None of them is likely to be any more close to what He actually looked like than the picture of Him as of African origin. Since you did not answer my similar point earlier, I do not know which of the following you are saying:

1. It is OK to portray Jesus as being blonde and much fairer-skinned than He most likely was, but it is not OK to portray him with slightly darker skin and hair than he most likely had.
2. The Vatican museums contain a lot of sacreligious artwork.
3. We didn’t know what Jesus looked like until the late 17th century, when He appeared to St. Margeret Mary, or alternately until 1931, when He appeared to St. Faustina. Before that, it was OK for artists like Blessed Fra Angelico or Rafael to depict Jesus different than He looked before His death and resurrection, but after these revelations (which are not infallible), any deviation in appearance from what these holy women saw became sacrilege.

Or maybe you are saying something else, but I can’t think what else fits in with the facts.

–Jen

 

[lozeerose]

lozeerose,

JEFF GOLDBLUM?" Well now that you mention it with the picture…But way more cool, right?

Oh yes, way cooler than Jeff. I walways wondered why no movies, that I’ve seen anyway, has ever cast a person of Semitic origin as Jesus. There are certainly plenty of Middle Eastern actors who would have no problems taking on such a role. (Not that Cavizel didn’t do a geat job but…)

My 2 cents.

 

[Thyme]

I thought that in apparitions, the vision appears how the person expects them appear. For example Our Lady of Guadalupe was dark-skinned, but Our Lady of Lourdes was light.

St. Faustina probably had the stereotypical Christ in mind, so when He appeared to her, she saw light skin and long dark hair. However, He was glowing… so maybe it was the glowing light that made His skin appear lighter than it actually is.

 

[PPeterson]

the national shrine in DC has a huge mosaic of blond blue eyed super aryan looking Jesus up front. Aba, you should definitely get fired up about that “sacrilege” too.

 

[Abba]

Abba - you keep returning to the theme of sacrilege. I’m not a theology expert, so what exactly constitutes a sacrilege in the Catholic religion? I expect that it has a formal, canonical guideline somewhere?

Hello sojo,

I researched a little what constitutes a sacrilege and in the notes of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine and other Fathers of the Church, they do not specify that the images of Our Lord are sacred. It appears that they are counting as ‘sacred things’ actual paintings and statues that have been consecrated or blessed, such as the Black Madonna or the statue of Saint Anthony in Saint Patrick’s Cathedral. It would be a sacrilege to harm these sacred objects.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not specify that the images are sacred:

2120 Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.52

I think the images of Our Lord are sacred and would constitute an act of sacrilege to distort them. It may not be specified but, I think it is understood. My uncle Alfredo was a sculptor and I have never seen any sculptor of his that was not of a religious nature. They were mostly of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. He did his work based on the images that have traditionally been given to us faithfuls by the Church. Now, the Church may commission an image of Jesus and Mary as having dark skin and with African features but that is the Church with her authority that can do so and has in Nyungwe, Chiradzulu.

However, in commissioning and consecrating an image of Jesus and Mary with dark skin the Church is not denying that Jesus was Jewish and light skin. Jesus is God of ALL and people are dynamic and different and the Church has different devotions that appeal to certain people and not to others but that help the faithful in their spiritual journey and remain true to the faith and are inspired by the Holy Spirit. While the people that are promoting the image of the black Jesus (mainly Baptist) deny that he was light skin and claim that the Church erroneously and knowingly claimed that Jesus was light skin although he was Africanus.

Now, to take this image of the black jesus that was painted in the sixties by supposedly an unknown painter and which was made famous and is promoted by the Baptist church and promoted in a Catholic parish; well, the word I want to use is sacrilege, others may call it blasphemy. I think it is a sacrilege because I think that the image of Our Lord is sacred. The package the image carries has no business in a Catholic parish. The Church did not err with all the images of a light skin Jesus that have commisioned and consecrated nor with her teachings.

Yes, I think the images of Our Lord are sacred. Back in the eighties there was rumblings from the homosexual communities that Jesus was gay and that this is why he had no children nor had sex with women and surrounded himself with the twelve male apostles. They claimed that Jesus was very intelligent and would have seen the animalistic level of sex with a woman and reproduction. Now, if the people that were holding and promoting this ridiculous yet dangerous and possibly harmful understanding went ahead and made an image of Jesus as gay, I would consider it a sacrilege, especially, if done by Catholics.

New Advent:
(Latin sacrilegium, robbing a temple, from sacer, sacred, and legere, to purloin.)

Sacrilege is in general the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object. In a less proper sense any transgression against the virtue of religion would be a sacrilege.

Theologians are substantially agreed in regarding as sacred that and that only which by a public rite and by Divine or ecclesiastical institution has been dedicated to the worship of God. The point is that the public authority must intervene; private initiative, no matter how ardent in devotion or praiseworthy in motive, does not suffice. Attributing a sacred character to a thing is a juridical act, and as such is a function of the governing power of the Church.

It is customary to enumerate three kinds of sacrilege: personal, local, and real. St. Thomas teaches (Summa, II-II, Q., xcix) that a different sort of holiness attaches to persons, places, and things. Hence the irreverence offered to any one of them is specifically distinct from that which is exhibited to the others. Suarez (De Religione, tr. iii, 1-3) does not seem to think the division very logical, but accepts it as being in accord with the canons.

I think that if a priest in a parish finds that it would be beneficial for the spiritual development of his parishioners to present and image of Jesus and/or Mary as of a different race he needs to consult with his Bishop. The images need to be Catholic in a Catholic parish. One solution to this could be of having a duplicate painting made of the image in Malawi and consecrating it and placing it in the parish with the Bishop’s approval. But, to just take an image from another church with all it’s implications and baggage is inappropriate to say the least. I seriously doubt that the Bishop consecrated the image of the black jesus.

To be clear, I just learned of the commission of Malawi and so it is fine to have a Catholic image of Jesus as an African. It would not be a distortion but because it is based on a spiritual understanding not a denial of his race on earth and glorified body.

Peace,

Abba

 

[Biedrik]

I thought Jesus’s resurrected body looked so different from his earthly body that the apostles did not recognize Him at first?

I always assumed that this was not because his appearance was different, but rather because Jesus simply made them not recognize him. That seems to make more sense than Jesus changing his features during his resurrection. It’s been a while since I read that part of the Bible, so I’m not sure.

 

[Abba]

Hello everyone,

I just want to note what I have learned while participating in this thread and perhaps to clarify my choppy writing a little. I am actually a very busy person and I some time post as if I was sending a telegram and think that people will decipher my writings. I apologize and I do try to sometimes take the time to write better.

Back in the OP, I wondered if there was any Church document or writing that would show that we are not at liberty to change the race and color of Our Lord unless there was an approved apparition of him in a different color or race. Well, I did come upon the Address cited below of a chapel and a painting in Nyungwe, Chiradzulu, Malawi. The painting is of Mary carrying the baby Jesus and both are depicted as of being of the African race. It is not based on an apparition.

It is the first time I ever heard of a Catholic image of Jesus and Mary depicted as African. I understand that it is not based on an apparition and I understand the spiritual objective. That being to facilitate for the faithfuls of the community a closeness to Our Lord and Mother Mary by seeing an image of them as of their on race and color. The painting was commission from the Vatican artists and Pope Benedict XVI was aware of it and sent his blessings to the community. I can appreciate the acceptance of the image because it is like so many of the devotions of the Church which are varied and answer to the different spiritual needs of
the faithfuls. I don’t think that a lot of dark or darker skin people necessarily need to have an image of Jesus and Mary seeming to be of their own color. I have a lot of relatives that are of African and Taino descendant and do not have that spiritual need to have a portray of Our Lord or Mary as if their own race. But, if it helps some people feel more united to Our Lord then so be it.

However, it is clear that he was born in the Jewish race and was light skin but LOVE surpasses these distinctions and is universal and Our Lord loves each and every one of us dearly - no matter our color or race.

CONCLUDING ADDRESS
of Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, President of the Pontifical Commission and of the (name removed by moderator)ato of Vatican City State

1. My sister Rosella, a Carmelite Tertiary, has gladly accepted the suggestion of Father Damaso Zuazua and has donated to the construction of this chapel, asking Vatican artists to execute this beautiful mosaic depicting Mary, Flower of Carmel. She hopes that you will like it and that it will assist you in your faith and devotion.
   In this work Mary is portrayed as an African woman and Jesus, held in his mother’s arms, is an African child. Everyone knows that Mary and Jesus were children of Israel. It is typical, however, of Jesus and his beloved Mother to desire to be united with us: Jesus and Mary belong to all peoples, speaking the language of every man and woman, because they speak the language of love, pardon, solidarity and justice. There is a passage from the Song of Solomon in which the bride sings: “I am very dark, but comely, O daughters of Jerusalem” (1:4). The Catholic tradition applies this to the Church and to Mary. It is right therefore that Africa holds and sees Mary as one of her own. In Italy and throughout Europe there are also many images of the “Black Madonna” which are much venerated.
   This picture depicts Mary, Queen of Carmel. The word “Carmel” means “garden of God”. Because of her virtues – her humility, her faith, her purity, her virginity - Mary is the most beautiful flower in the garden of God. However, her beauty stands out above all because Mary is the Mother of Jesus, whom she holds in her embrace. And you see that Jesus opens and extends his arms to each of you; he wants to gather all of us in his single embrace. You also see Mary who offers a scapular, namely a sure sign of her maternal protection during sad and painful times, in life and in death: always.
   May each of you, when you are praying in front of the image, feel that Jesus and Mary are close to you and love you; may you find comfort, trust and a renewed desire to live in peace and joy with the brothers and sisters of Jesus and Mary.
   vaticanstate.va/EN/State_and_Government/Structure_Governorate/Presidency/President/2007/5_October_2007.htm

I would love to see a picture of this painting but, I am unable to find one online. If anyone wants to try find it, it would be great.

---

 

[Abba]

Hello Jen,

I do not think that people tried to make Our Lord Jesus look european. I think people portrayed him the way he was. I think that there is something to what I have claimed regarding that it is a sacrilege to distort his image and I do not think that people would very easily do this.

Actually the second sentence of the quote of Newadvent in my previous post would apply to the image of Jesus.

Newadvent:
Sacrilege is in general the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object. In a less proper sense any transgression against the virtue of religion would be a sacrilege.

I think that it is natural in our modern times to wonder why Jesus did not have certain semitic characteristics that are more familiar. I think that in order to find the correct answer to this question is to not question the Church and accept that Jesus looked the way the Church has portrayed him thru the centuries and take it from there. This I believe is the approach to finding the correct answer and the truth.

Consider that people may have a certain expected image of an Italian man in the United States based on the Italian in their communities which probably are from the same region of Italy. People may be very surprise to learn that a tall, green eye man is Italian from Italy. The people in the north of Italy are very different from those of Sicily. Similarly, I am light skin and have green eyes and I was born in the Dominican Republic. When I go to the DR people treat me like a tourist and are always surprised to learn I am Dominican. I actually look very international, the Jews think I am Jewish, the French think that I am Italian, the Italians think that I am French…really. But, my family is from the Ciboa region of the Dominican Republic where there are a lot of light skin people. To say that there are regional differences in a country and this could very well have been the case in Bethlehem.

I once briefly read about the difference in the semitic race. This was many moons ago and I just barely remember some of the information. I remember that there are great difference within the Jewish race and I know that one of the groups that has certain characteristics are the Jewish people of Russia and they are distinguished from another group but, I don’t remember much.

Peace,

Abba

 

[Joe_5859]

Sacred Heart of Jesus:

http://www.tldm.org/tldmstore/SacredHeartPicture2.jpg

Don’t you think that the above picture of Jesus looks distinctly European when compared to the image on the Shroud of Turin?

 

[traillius]

Biologically, its my understanding that Jesus was and is an olive skinned mediterranean looking person. But that doesn’t matter. Whether He is black,white, olive, or purple with green and orange blotches over his body, the importance is what he sacrificed, and the redemption brought about by his death and resurrection. Its an interesting academic exercise to debate his ethnicity and appearance, physically, but its irrelevent to his mission and role in the Father’s plan.
If you want to display an image of Jesus or mary a certain way to a certain group, or they themselves appear that way in a legitimate apparition, that is acceptable. But to claim that Jesus “IS” african, european, whatever, for reasons of racial motivation, or political gain, is sinful and wrong. Also, its probably non-factual, since he born to a jewish woman, into a middle eastern hebrew community. Genetically, and for reason known to God, not the least of which would be not having Jesus be ’ distinctly unhebrew ’ in appearance, God made Jesus look like mary physically. That would have raised some eyebrows, no? " Mary, this child is pure black? where have you been? " or even " how did you mary, with olive skin and dark eyes and hair, give birth to this blue eyed goldilocks? Something you wanna tell us?

 

[magdelaine1173]

Jesus has a resurrection body. He can look like whatever he wants–note how the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him. In the same way that the Blessed Mother does not look the same to everyone in her different apparitions, I cannot see anything wrong with people depicting Jesus in different ways.

Also, I have always assumed that Jesus had darker skin and hair than that with which he is usually depicted in European art. I mean, He was a Jewish man from the Middle East–presumably he was dark-skinned, with dark-brown hair. We (Europeans and Americans of European stock) have lightened Him in our art, so that we will understand better that He is our brother–why should anyone else be prevented from doing so?

So I’m afraid I have to disagree with you 100% on this one. When Christ was on earth, He was Middle Eastern, not European or African. Now, with His resurrection body, He can be all three, as well as Asian, etc.

Just my :twocents:

–Jen

This is also how I feel. Middle Eastern and swarthy in appearance. Dark skin, hair and eyes. We Europeans certainly HAVE lightened Him up quite a bit! Very well put Jen.

Magdelaine1173

 

[Abba]

Hello Joe5859,

Don’t you think that the above picture of Jesus looks distinctly European when compared to the image on the Shroud of Turin?

No.

If that is the case you would have to say that the image on the Shroud of Turin looks distinctively European. Remember he was dead when wrapped in the shroud and he had been beaten up. The Shroud of Turin is not a photograph. How is the image that you see in the Shroud of Turin? It is certainly not african nor oriental nor whatever, right? It is the image of Jesus and, yes, he was light skin.

In this video is presented one of the sorriest argurments against the Catholic image of Jesus. That being that, the europeans did not know how a jew looked like and assumed that they looked like them. Now, seriously, there were Jews in europe.youtube.com/watch?v=xvjTayq3Tuk

Here is a documentary video about the ashkenazim and shepardim jews.
youtube.com/watch?v=5AIKQHO0esk

We do have the first of of Matthew but, it is difficult with limited information in 2010 to come to a clear understanding of why Jesus looked on this earth just the same way he has been portrayed by the Church and has appeared through the ages since his ressurection to the saints of the Church - except with a glorified body.

Peace,

Abba

 

[revert_jen]

If that is the case you would have to say that the image on the Shroud of Turin looks distinctively European. Remember he was dead when wrapped in the shroud and he had been beaten up. The Shroud of Turin is not a photograph. How is the image that you see in the Shroud of Turin? It is certainly not african nor oriental nor whatever, right? It is the image of Jesus and, yes, he was light skin.

Actually, I’d have to say from looking at the Shroud of Turin, that Jesus looked like a Middle-Eastern Jewish man.

Abba, you are free to believe that Jesus had light skin if you like (although I don’t get why it is so important to you), just make sure that you make it clear to people that it is your pious opinion, not a teaching of the Church. Any time we present our own opinions as the teachings of the Church, we are offending against Truth. I freely admit that my opinions about what Jesus looked like are just that–my opinions.

There is no teaching of the Church that, e.g., the Divine Mercy picture is some sort of photograph of Jesus. The important part of the Divine Mercy message is, in fact, the message. The important part of the Sacred Heart message is the actual Sacred Heart of Jesus, “with all the treasures of love, of mercy, of grace, of sanctification and salvation which it contains” (–St. Margaret Mary Alacoque), not the picture. And the most important part of both pictures is the symbolism, not the photographic likeness. I seem to recall reading somewhere (but I may be remembering it incorrectly, and in fact it might have been St. Margaret Mary instead or someone else) that St. Faustina herself said that the picture couldn’t come near the actual vision she saw.

Whether or not I have remembered that correctly, the Church has not declared either picture the “official Catholic” picture of Jesus. The fact that lots of pious Catholics have both pictures in their homes, doesn’t mean that there is an official Church teaching on the degree of likeness. In any case,
CCC #67:

Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith.

The period of public revelation ended with the death of John the Apostle. The pictures of Jesus that have been painted since are not part of the deposit of the faith, and faithful Catholics are not obligated to believe in them.

–Jen

 

[Crumpy]

There’s a different option than portraying Jesus as a black man.

But, it’s hard for me to express it. Jesus was portrayed in sculpture media that happened to be black. I didn’t see it preaching to me that Jesus WAS black.

And, this was in a parish which was predominantly caucasian.

I like the reverse psychology of that art, to see Jesus in a new way, in order to see Jesus in each person that we meet, as difficult as that may be.

I feel that Catholics are so shallow sometimes, as is revealed in these forums. I like the Jewish emphasis on the biblical assertion that man is made in the image and likeness of God.

I also like the Jewish insight that God blessed us to reveal to us that we were made in His image and likeness.

When we wake up and accept that mankind is made in the image and likeness of God, then it is much less problematic to quibble over the representation of Jesus. I recall in some older forms of paintings, saints were depicted with halos and Christ was depicted with an exaggerated halo with a cross in it. And, this was probably to help the observer to know more quickly which figure was representing Christ.

The Jewish emphasis is on showing me that you love your neighbor to prove to me that you love God. Love your neighbor and forget worrying what Jesus looked like.

 

[Makarios]

I see no sacrilege or confusion. Most everyone knows that Jesus was a Jew, probably dark skinned with Semitic features, most likely handsome within the constructs of his community as he was very charismatic and an ugly man would not be considered charismatic at that time…

LOL. The Bible says He looked like a normal Jew, and that none of His physical features would draw attention to Him.

Isaiah 53:2:
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

 

[Abba]

Jen,

You are free to imagine Jesus they way you do. Actually, some even prefer to think of him as: "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. "http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/21/arts/21JESU.html

I with the liberty that I have, consider the fact that the new proposition of how Jesus looked when on earth are less than 100 years old. Why the silence for 1,900 odd years? Why wasn’t there a great debate in early christianity about how he was not being portrayed as he was? I think it is because he* was* being portrayed as he was.

Why is it that the saints never wrote about how the apparitions they witnessed was different than what they had been told? Why, is it that Saint Francis of Assisi never said anything, nor Mother Angelica nor Saint Anthony Mary de Claret etc, etc, etc.

I take into account these considerations and as for me and my house we will believe that the images Holy Mother Church has given us are true.

Peace,

Abba

 

[Abba]

LOL. The Bible says He looked like a normal Jew, and that none of His physical features would draw attention to Him.

Isaiah 53:2:
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

Yeah, but, this is the suffering servant.

Also, we should not assume that what may be considered beautiful to europeans today (looking europeans) has been the case the world over and through out history. Consider that a up to a century or so ago, fat woman were considered beautiful and attractive. The europeans were not the power at the time it was the Romans. It would have made more sense to try to make him look Roman if the early christians would have dared to play with his image.

Peace,

Abba