SPLIT: Cultural depictions of Jesus/Mary

[lemonbeam]

No - the dog does not belong at Mass, as sweet as he may be.

And what’s with the African American Jesus on the processional cross? Christ was a Jew, He was not African American.

~Liza

What do you mean ‘’’‘African American?’’ Do most African American people, and African people worldwide think Jesus (Yeshua) was Black as in dark skinned, well the answer would be yes.

There are Black people all the way through Jesus’ (Yeshua’s) lineage.

I’ve been doing a lot of research on this online.

The evidence is conclusive. Most of the people mentioned in the Bible were of races of dark complexion. And the region that Jesus (Yeshua’s) came from featured only people of the Negroid and Mongoloid races. There were no Caucasians in Egypt or the surrounding areas at the time.

Jesus is a descendant of Abraham, who came from the Samarian city of Ur of Chaldes, which was a black civilization, like many, if not most, of the societies described in the Bible.

We know that Noah’s son, Ham, was Black. Jesus descended from a number of Ham’s ancestors, including Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Naomi, Bathsheba and Jezebel.

In the United States today the general view on whether someone is “black” is the One-Drop Rule – if a person has any black ancestors s/he is considered “black”, even with a clearly Anglo skin color, e.g., Mariah Carry, LaToya Jackson.

Then we have the verse in Revelations about Jesus’ skin being like brass, and his hair the texture of wool, but that can be talked away as symbolism. I’m talking about the ancestral lineage.

If you look at these two Catholic websites, they affirm:

“Black Madonna” is a nickname. It refers to skin tones in the portrait of Mary and Jesus. They and St. Joseph lived in a hot climate. Hence, their skin tone would be dark brown or olive in order to survive the intensity of the sun and avoid skin cancer.

Not until the Renaissance were there paintings of Jesus and Mary with alabaster skin, blue eyes and blond hair. Previously, all religious artwork reflected the olive skin, with black or brown hair and eyes attributed to the Holy Family and the Apostles.

franciscancaring.org/blackmadonnashri.html

bvmc.org/Our%20Patron.htm

Most of the European Jews are converts to Judaism, they’re not the Jews of Jesus’ time.

 

[PacoG]

I have this mini-collection of depictions of Jesus and Mary - and they always look like the nationality of the person who made the art, be it chinese, african, or european

And in the one portrait she did leave of herself at Tepeyac on St. Juan Diego’s tilma (Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe), she looks like an Aztec princess.

 

[Lainey63]

I remember as a child hearing about the black Christ and this has been around for quite some time. Here is an article I found yourpanama.com/black-christ.html

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

One should have the same attitude towards a blonde-haired-blue-eyed Jesus as they do an african/asian/hispanic Jesus. They all make the same amount of sense.

 

[cothrige]

One should have the same attitude towards a blonde-haired-blue-eyed Jesus as they do an african/asian/hispanic Jesus. They all make the same amount of sense.

I agree. I have always liked the movie Jesus of Nazareth, but I simply cannot get past the pasty white Jesus. It is distracting. Our Lord certainly was not white with blue eyes just as he was not a black African. For my taste we should, as closely as is possible, depict the Lord as the Palestinian Jew he was. I personally fear that a distaste for Jews led to the popular depiction of the Lord as a white European, and I think we should avoid other similar developments if we can. In this day and age we have little excuse for inaccuracy.

 

[grace_singh]

and as far as him resembling whichever culture that did the artwork, could you imagine a ‘chinese’ jesus?!? LOL…((my apologizies brief visual overcame me))… theres nothing racist about me, I’m not trying to be mean, but there is a certain level of ridiculousness…IOW I could never take a picture of a chinese jesus seriously

https://notfound.typepad.com

why on earth wouldn’t you be able to take an East-Asian Christ seriously? how is such a statement not racist? you feel able to take a light-skinned, brown haired, blue-eyed Jesus seriously, but not an African or Asian Christ?

here is an image of Christ feeding the multitudes from Ethiopia :

https://notfound.typepad.com

it’s a painting of the Lord, looking like the people from the region He was painted in. why would that make anyone laugh?

 

[grace_singh]

in truth, many people around and interacting with Christ in the Gospels probably would have looked a lot like these people:

Syrian Man
Jordanian Women
Egyptian Girl

light brown to medium to dark in complexion, with wavy or curly dark hair, and brown eyes.

Jesus’ ancestry does include North African as well as Semitic ancestry. Abraham was from the land we now call Iraq. so long as the Son of God is being respected and honored, i see no reason why people shouldn’t feel free to depict Him as they like.

 

[cothrige]

The evidence is conclusive. Most of the people mentioned in the Bible were of races of dark complexion. And the region that Jesus (Yeshua’s) came from featured only people of the Negroid and Mongoloid races. There were no Caucasians in Egypt or the surrounding areas at the time.

That is probably so but also the people of that region were not black as in Negroid. Darkness of skin can vary and means little. The Persians were much lighter in skin than the Greeks, according to Xenophon, but I hardly think that means we should believe that the Greeks are actually Negroid.

Much of what you seem to be positing is that people described as black are automatically black Africans. I do not think this is so. People often assume that historical documents calling a person black automatically amounts to a racial classification just as so often people think all Africans are racially black. I am always alarmed by people insisting that St. Augustine was black, not because it is offensive that he might have been (he wasn’t btw) but because it is such very unsound reasoning. Being in Africa doesn’t make one Black, and being black doesn’t make one African.

Then we have the verse in Revelations about Jesus’ skin being like brass, and his hair the texture of wool, but that can be talked away as symbolism. I’m talking about the ancestral lineage.

Talked away? That’s a strange way of describing things. Here is the verse:

*And his head and his hairs were white, as white wool, and as snow, and his eyes were as a flame of fire, And his feet like unto fine brass, as in a burning furnace. And his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars. And from his mouth came out a sharp two edged sword: and his face was as the sun shineth in his power. *

Firstly we should see that it doesn’t say that his hair was like wool, but that his head and hairs were both white like wool. Also, his skin was not like brass, but his feet. And are we really meant to think that he had white hair and brass coloured feet when he walked the earth? If so then he also had eyes of flame and a sword for a tongue. These phrases are not descriptions what the man Jesus looked like when he lived. Trying to twist this, as some do, to suggest something about Christ’s race is to do a vast injustice to the Scriptures.

In the end the facts are simple. Our Lord was a Palestinian Jew with dark skin and dark hair. He was not a black man as we would understand that description today. He was also not a white man by the same standards. He was a Jew. Just because his skin was dark does not make him a different race.

 

[cothrige]

why on earth wouldn’t you be able to take an East-Asian Christ seriously? how is such a statement not racist?

You seem to assume that when people of European descent find pictures of Christ as Chinese odd it is motivated by racism. But, you don’t wonder whether the Chinese who are apparently so uncomfortable with a Jewish Lord are also racist. Why? As I see it the depriving of our Lord of his Jewishness, which he preached about so often, is much more alarming than is the difficulty of people to think that the Lord might have been Chinese.

 

[Tsuwano]

I once saw a crucifix in a small chapel in a religious house in Chicago in which the artist attempted to picture a Christ with a blend of racial characteristics. The crucified Christ looked similar to Tiger Woods or, goodness gracious, President Obama. This was in the early 80’s, long before either man came on the scene.

 

[PacoG]

Then there was that effeminate, Native American Jesus painting that won some award from National Catholic Reporter back in 2000. Now Jesus isn’t even a man. I’m sure someone will post it and talking about what a work of art it is.

Except for John Allen, National Catholic Reporter is a joke. And are the broad church Episcopal wannabes attacking John Allen nowadays.

 

[cothrige]

Then there was that effeminate, Native American Jesus painting that won some award from National Catholic Reporter back in 2000. Now Jesus isn’t even a man. I’m sure someone will post it and talking about what a work of art it is.

Except for John Allen, National Catholic Reporter is a joke. And are the broad church Episcopal wannabes attacking John Allen nowadays.

I think this is a good way to approach the concept. Would it offend Catholics, or anyone, to depict Christ as a woman? I would say yes, and it should. However, what about the statements above that Christ came to all cultures, and so it is reasonable for them to depict Christ as they appear. Didn’t Christ, though, also come to all people and genders? And somebody had argued that there is neither male nor female, Jew or Gentile in Christ. And yet it is right there, “neither male nor female.” So, Christ is just as reasonably shown as a woman as he is as a Chinese. And yet I doubt any here that are okay with one are with the other.

 

[Tsuwano]

I think this is a good way to approach the concept. Would it offend Catholics, or anyone, to depict Christ as a woman? I would say yes, and it should. However, what about the statements above that Christ came to all cultures, and so it is reasonable for them to depict Christ as they appear. Didn’t Christ, though, also come to all people and genders? And somebody had argued that there is neither male nor female, Jew or Gentile in Christ. And yet it is right there, “neither male nor female.” So, Christ is just as reasonably shown as a woman as he is as a Chinese. And yet I doubt any here that are okay with one are with the other.

Actually, I think it is well worth imagining God as our mother as much as our father and to construct positive images of God which many may think of as feminine. If imagining Jesus as a woman helps to expand our image of God and helps us understand a greater truth about God, then I see no harm in that. Of course, such an image also contains an element of falsehood which must be recognized and accepted. All images of God are false in that they cannot contain all that God is or all ways in which God reveals himself to humanity. The creative imagination should help lead us to greater awareness and understanding of God, as long as we remember the limitations of our imagination and the images we create.

 

[Charlotte408]

Actually, I think it is well worth imagining God as our mother as much as our father and to construct positive images of God which many may think of as feminine. If imagining Jesus as a woman helps to expand our image of God and helps us understand a greater truth about God, then I see no harm in that. Of course, such an image also contains an element of falsehood which must be recognized and accepted. All images of God are false in that they cannot contain all that God is or all ways in which God reveals himself to humanity. The creative imagination should help lead us to greater awareness and understanding of God, as long as we remember the limitations of our imagination and the images we create.

That sounds easy and all…but honestly do you think the majority of people would be able to do that? I mean, I might not be able to put it as profoundly as you, LOL- but my mind goes here:

Theres already very confused people out there committing homosexual acts. Aside from those people, who are slightly confused, and think that the foremost are correct or okay in doing so…so its not just ‘gay’ people, there is a large group of some very confused people out there…

you dont think depicting jesus with a feminine personality would only FURTHER confuse the heck out of them? or even cater to them, like, ‘well see, god, or jesus, who he is, is not who he was, but who he is TO ME, and MY jesus, is effimininate, so MY actions are now ok…’

see what i’m saying??

 

[Charlotte408]

idk i just think like, especially when it comes to christ, that there is an absolute TRUTH. and, the more you sugarcoat it, fluff it up, change it to accomodate whomever, the more you ADD on to it (FACT IS jesus was a MAN and JEWISH) the farther from what it IS you get…and thats why you have all these people who have different ideas or views or what have you, concerning jesus or the faith…