Jesus as a black man

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abba
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, I’d have to say from looking at the Shroud of Turin, that Jesus looked like a Middle-Eastern Jewish man.
While reviewing the evidence of the Shroud in 1999, Dr. Gilbert Lavoie presented an intriguing discovery, that the body had light blond hair:

holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/williamsaunders/straightanswers/shroudofturin.asp

Researcher Brendan Whiting shown the 14th Century carbon 14 dating to be in error. They dated a sample taken from the outside edge that was repaired with a reweave in the 14th Century:

advancedchristianity.com/DatingTheShroud/DatingTheShroud.htm

God Bless
 
Hello Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus,

I was just thinking how it is clear to Catholics that Jesus was Jewish and light skin. Basically, as a Catholic I know that Jesus looked as he is portrayed in the paintings and scultures that throughtout history have been commissioned by the Church and in those works of art that were not commissioned yet are Catholic images of Our Lord Jesus. I would think that this is clear. I can understand that other faiths because of a lack of understanding may believe that Jesus was a black man or any other type of race or color but, to see Jesus portrayed as a black man in a Catholic parish just strikes me as wrong,

Personally, I have a lot of relatives, my grandparents and aunts and uncles being the Catholic families that they were did not believe in contraception and all had very big families. To say that, I have a lot of relatives. My relatives can form a beautiful rainbow with the color of their skin. Yet, they do not portray Jesus to look the color of their skin. Jesus was who he was and he looked the way he looked.

Jesus had one body and he died for ALL of us. He looked the way he looked and I see no need for Catholics to portray him as a black man. Jesus is not a Jesus for the black people, a Jesus for the white people, a Jesus for the Indians, a Jesus for the orientals, a Jesus for the females, etc… there is only one Jesus and he looked the way he looked.

Is there anything in the teachings of the Church that would confirm my view that it is a defamation to portray Jesus in any other way than the race and color he really was? I would go as far as to say that it is a sacrilege and one that can create confusion to the faithful.
Couldn’t the Black Madonna have had a black baby?
 
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.
As in the case of Jeremiah Wright, you may have a point. Wright does it specifically for the purpose of being confrontational, while exhibiting the demeanor of an escaped mental patient. I think there is a very good reason why Our Holy Mother appeared as an Aztec to Saint Juan Diego and European to Saint Bernadette, to be more personable. If people of dark skin color feel more comfortable with a dark mental image of Jesus, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. If thinking of Jesus in a familiar aspect leads people to Christ, how can it be wrong?
There is only one Jesus and he looked the way he looked.
That is true, and the image on the Shroud seems to exhibit significant clues that He had light blonde hair. But as Our Holy Mother proves, it may be of no importance.
Maria Valtorta definitely interesting.
Yes, but although she may be the only mystic to see Jesus with blonde hair and blue eyes, she heard everything in her native Italian. Since language was altered for recognition, there is the possibility that appearances may have likewise been altered.

God Bless
 
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
Agreed. Why is it okay to do one and not the other?

This topic has long interested me and I want to weigh in. I think that the reason Jesus is depicted as different races and ethnicities by those groups is because they feel more distant from Him having always seeing Him depicted as a white(ish) man, especially given the history of oppression and colonialization by certain whites in various parts of the world and the result of those groups seeing Jesus as the distant “white people’s God” instead of everyone’s God, due to some whites’ sinful actions of racism and oppression. So, I think it is these groups’ way of bringing God closer to themselves in a way which is easy to grasp and I don’t see how that is wrong or sacrilegious. Humans are hugely visual and we are powerfully shaped by visual images. I imagine most of us having this discussion are white and so we have always had the luxury of feeling like we can identify with a pale, Caucasian-looking Jesus as he has been depicted, never having to say to ourselves, “that doesn’t look like me”. As long as the portrayal is done respectfully, from a desire to be closer to God, and not as a trendy political correctness statement, then as I said, I don’t see how it’s wrong.

The portrayal of Jesus as white, blue eyed, blonde, etc has bothered me because it’s veritably inaccurate. He was Jewish, we know this for sure, and though there is genetic variation within ethnic groups, he most likely had traditionally Semitic features such as darker skin, hair and eyes. Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think there was as much interracial or ethnic mixing in ancient times as we have today. But we don’t know for sure what His ancestors looked like and how that may have influenced Him to look. As for St. Faustina’s portrait, to me he does look Middle Eastern, if very pale.
 
Jesus was not black nor was he white; He was genetically Semetic an came from a region where it is fairly certain that his complexion would have been olive/brown-toned. His hair was probably wavy, thick and dark. Just look at the inhabitants of that region today…Many of the portraits commissioned by the Church and others often reflect their own thoughts and surroundings. And many of the earliest icons reflect an appearance of a Jesus who is clearly Semitic. There are also many apparitions and paintings from the far East to Mexico that depict both Our Blessed Mother and the Christ Child in a way that is familiar to the inhabitants of those regions.
This is pretty much what I would have thought. Jesus was a Galilean Jew, and would have had the ethnic characteristics typical of that geographical region for his time. Jesus was a real person, at a real point and place in history. I would have figured Jesus would have looked like you outlined, swarthy skin tone, dark hair, brown eyes etc, with hair-style and apparel typical of the the region and Jewish custom at that time. As some one else pointed out, probably handsome by the standards of his community at the time.
So if you want to speak of Jesus’ human nature,or indeed the historical Jesus, then it would probably be appropriate to speak of him in this terms.

The divine nature of Jesus, and cultivating a relationship of faith with the Son of God is a different matter I think. I think people are free to see Jesus, individually and personally in whatever way it happens to manifest itself. (Others have alluded to the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin to support this argument, so no need to repeat)

Jesus’ divine and human natures were intertwined, so is it appropriate to separate the two? In the accounts of the gospels, such as the Transfiguration, Jesus’ appearance changed before the eyes of the Apostles who witnessed it. After the resurrection, Jesus appeared, apparently as a different man, as he was not immediately recognised by those who previously knew him. In the upper room, when he appeared as his former self, even the Apostles remained incredulous. Perhaps getting caught up with appearances is deceptive, and becomes self-defeating.

John: 28-29 - Thomas replied, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him: You believe because you can see me. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. ***

That we need to ‘see’ something as an aid to faith, is simply a sign of our own human weakness. Allow others their weaknes, for we all have our own. If a painting of a ‘black’ Jesus leads someone to God, then the Holy Spirit must surely be at work. If you have a relationship with Jesus, surely an unfamiliar, yet respectful decpiction of Our Lord, would not be cause to lead you away from him, or your fellow man.
“Be not angry that you cannot make others as you wish them to be, since you cannot make yourself as you wish to be.” Thomas a Kempis
 
This is a very interessting link about the Lord of Miracles in Lima/ Peru, it shows Jesus as a black man and does grant miracles, so i think that out from this we can see that there is no problem at all to depict Jesus as a black man.

thelordofmiracles.org/
 
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
The suffering servant is the jewish Messiah and all christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah of which the jewish prophecies spoke. Isaiah described the Passion of Christ. So, Makarios is right that Jesus was a typical everyman regarding his attractiveness. He was also a carpenter so he problably looked like a stout physical worker.

If some black guys imagine that he’s black I don’t see anything blasphemous about it. If it had any importance for our faith Evangelists would have described his looks, but they hadn’t because it simply doesn’t matter at all.
 
What significance and importance is it what anyones skin color is or was including Jesus Christ? It really makes not a single iota of difference. Nobody cares but small minded people, with small minded opinions. It has nothing to do with FAITH in GOD.

You are leaving you body in the Ground were and with whoever shall make that choice for you and they deem fit. And hopfully you have gotten it right with the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit and Mary and will be afforded to opportunity to live together in a higher consciousness.

And BTW it… I could understand how a youth would have a question like this. But to promote this drival to any degree, I seriuously question the motives. Which I believe undermine Christology. And are at the root are simply evil and ugly.

Every single human being has blood, breaths air and has a thousand other similiar triats. What is the point of searching for that which makes us different? To me its about the same as debating if Christ was Fat, was he Ugly? Did he have a small mans complex? Maybe he was humble because he was Tall? Did he have big feet? And on and on and on. Its like babysetting first graders. And thus we continue to reduce the sacred institution and GOD and Jesus Christ to a Caricature.

Talk about LOST. Much Prayer is needed today as we continue to witness this throughout this forum [Which probly started out as a great place for Catholics to come and chit-chat] that evil simply continues to rage. I feel sorry that many humans were subjected to this learned behavior as children. Obviously it profoundly effects many. Yet the racist thinking needs to taken to a theropist where you can work out [and act out of need be] your inadequate thinking and behavior. I suggest you unburden yourself with this extra baggage you lug around, especially if your over 10. It won’t serve you well in your journey through this world as an adult. Unless your in seach of other like, small minded thinking and beings, on the jouney to hell in small town USA/Earth? 🤷
 
What significance and importance is it what anyones skin color is or was including Jesus Christ? It really makes not a single iota of difference. Nobody cares but small minded people, with small minded opinions. It has nothing to do with FAITH in GOD.

You are leaving you body in the Ground were and with whoever shall make that choice for you and they deem fit. And hopfully you have gotten it right with the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit and Mary and will be afforded to opportunity to live together in a higher consciousness.

And BTW it… I could understand how a youth would have a question like this. But to promote this drival to any degree, I seriuously question the motives. Which I believe undermine Christology. And are at the root are simply evil and ugly.

Every single human being has blood, breaths air and has a thousand other similiar triats. What is the point of searching for that which makes us different? To me its about the same as debating if Christ was Fat, was he Ugly? Did he have a small mans complex? Maybe he was humble because he was Tall? Did he have big feet? And on and on and on. Its like babysetting first graders. And thus we continue to reduce the sacred institution and GOD and Jesus Christ to a Caricature.

Talk about LOST. Much Prayer is needed today as we continue to witness this throughout this forum [Which probly started out as a great place for Catholics to come and chit-chat] that evil simply continues to rage. I feel sorry that many humans were subjected to this learned behavior as children. Obviously it profoundly effects many. Yet the racist thinking needs to taken to a theropist where you can work out [and act out of need be] your inadequate thinking and behavior. I suggest you unburden yourself with this extra baggage you lug around, especially if your over 10. It won’t serve you well in your journey through this world as an adult. Unless your in seach of other like, small minded thinking and beings, on the jouney to hell in small town USA/Earth? 🤷
I think you got it all wrong, the question is not what his color was, thats unimportant but the OP asked and seemed to have difficulties when christ is depicted as black, or asian or indian or any other shape than the accepted european standard.

The Church has never had any problem about whatsoever people depict christ as nobody really know what he looked like.

For people of another origin than european caucasian it is always easier to identify with their own race, thats a fact, thats why we have icons of christ in different shapes and the church never forbade it because there was no need to, it is better that people have a picture they can identify with.

Its the same for the europeans, we know christ was not european so even our own icons can not be said to resemble christ but for the matter of identification it is good in whatever shape he is depicted, it has nothing to do with racism.
 
Logic would dictate that he looked like a typical Yemenite Jew
 
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
Shoot ! Here I was thinking that this 17th -18th century Ethiopian Orthodox icon , was made before the 20th century.

I don’t think the Lord cares on how people paint him, as long as it brings people to him . If we shouldn’t distort his image , then all of the paintings,frescos,statues, and mosaics in the Vatican would have to be sandblasted from the walls!
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/JuicioFinale.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Sanzio%2C_Raffaello_-Disputa_del_Sacramento-1508-1511-_hi_res.jpg
 
Shoot ! Here I was thinking that this 17th -18th century Ethiopian Orthodox icon , was made before the 20th century.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Iyesus_(Ethiopia).jpg
I don’t think the Lord cares on how people paint him, as long as it brings people to him . If we shouldn’t distort his image , then all of the paintings,frescos,statues, and mosaics in the Vatican would have to be sandblasted from the walls!
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/JuicioFinale.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Sanzio%2C_Raffaello_-Disputa_del_Sacramento-1508-1511-_hi_res.jpg
You are quite right, take also a look at this website:
thelordofmiracles.org/

Its origins traces back to the 16th century
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top