Why do European/American christians think Jesus looked caucasian?

Owen

Serious question, prompted by a photo of Jesus one guy has in his sig. Surely jesus visually looked like the people of his region, and not like a beegee? This thread isn't a pisstake - I'm genuinely interested, and wonder if there are any other images of him from before the one we know became commonplace.

PDN

For the same reason that some Africans like to think of Jesus as looking like this:

And Chinese Christians like to think of Him as looking like this:

gonnaplayrugby

yeah its like santa claus u know people have different visions of him dependin on region...shows how false it all is. jesus actually didnt exist...true story.

Fanny Cradock

I'm sure that your extensive research on the subject will shake the majority view held by scholars - religious and secular - the world over.

Read the charter. Next time you get infracted.

Adhamh

Well, he was from present-day Israel, so he probably would have been Semitic. And from what I've seen of ancient religious art, little of it was good enough to convey the subtle differences between Semites and white Europeans.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

krudler

PDN wrote: »

For the same reason that some Africans like to think of Jesus as looking like this:

And Chinese Christians like to think of Him as looking like this:

They're wrong as well though

Zombrex

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Serious question, prompted by a photo of Jesus one guy has in his sig. Surely jesus visually looked like the people of his region, and not like a beegee? This thread isn't a pisstake - I'm genuinely interested, and wonder if there are any other images of him from before the one we know became commonplace.

It is not just Jesus, humans have always represented historical figures inaccurately based on the people they are used to and the fashions of the times

This is a picture from the late 13th century of Macro Polo meeting Kublia Kan



The people and buildings in the painting look European, not Mongolian.

PDN

krudler wrote: »

They're wrong as well though

I don't think they are 'wrong' - because the physical appearance of Jesus is totally unimportant to us.

The point is that the Gospel translates into every culture and language, and all of us find we can identify with Jesus. It's the same kind of idea that causes theatre companies to stage productions of Shakespeare in modern dress.

Stephentlig

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Serious question, prompted by a photo of Jesus one guy has in his sig. Surely jesus visually looked like the people of his region, and not like a beegee? This thread isn't a pisstake - I'm genuinely interested, and wonder if there are any other images of him from before the one we know became commonplace.

I assume you mean me? it is the TLIG image used by TLIG.

The image of the face of Jesus so strongly associated with True Life in God is actually created from a combination of a painting of Jesus and the image of the face of Jesus on the Holy Shroud

The image on the right was painted by Ariel Agemian (1904-1963), born in Turkey, while living in France in 1935. He used the image on the Holy Shroud (the Turin Shroud) as his 'model'. The TLIG image is a composite of the Agemian portrait and the Shroud negative image. It was allegedly made in 1978 by NASA engineers at a time when they were involved in scientific investigations of the Shroud.
www.tlig.org
www.davidtlig.org

krudler

Wasnt the shroud carbon tested and considered a hoax?

Stephentlig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKuvYKbzlro

the above should answer your question.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Coriolanus

Stephentlig wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKuvYKbzlro

the above should answer your question.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Eh, a lab whose spokesperson is a "Vatican insider"?

Threes a charm people, I think it probably needs to be tested more, preferably lots of times. Humans are fallible after all.

monosharp

Stephentlig wrote: »

The image of the face of Jesus so strongly associated with True Life in God is actually created from a combination of a painting of Jesus and the image of the face of Jesus on the Holy Shroud

That would be the shroud dated to 1000 years after Jesus was dead yes ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

Because noone looks more like Jesus then some guy from 1260 to 1390.

Stephentlig

Humans are fallible after all.

Yes humans are fallible, and so are their machines, I put my faith in God and the evidence of his existence and you put your faith in your unreliable machines and the evidence that science claims to retain.:rolleyes:

I'm not gonna get into another blah blah God doesnt exist thread or Holy Shroud isnt real thread so I'm stopping it here.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Adhamh

To Stephentlig and Nevore:

Have you never heard of Papal Infallibility, or is Mr. Benedict XVI not human?

hinault

Does it matter what Jesus looked like?

Surely the teachings of Jesus Christ are more important?

monosharp

Stephentlig wrote: »

Yes humans are fallible, and so are their machines, I put my faith in God and the evidence of his existence and you put your faith in your unreliable machines and the evidence that science claims to retain.

Oh the irony of it all. :rolleyes:

So you believe anything as long as its vaguely supportive of your religion ? Nice.

prinz

Adhamh wrote: »

Have you never heard of Papal Infallibility, or is Mr. Benedict XVI not human?

Go research how Papal infallibility actually works :rolleyes:

Yes suprisingly Jesus has looked like basically every ethnic group where His message has been spread, for a simple reason identifiability. Do I think Jesus looked Caucasian? No. There goes your theory OP.

krudler

Stephentlig wrote: »

Yes humans are fallible, and so are their machines, I put my faith in God and the evidence of his existence and you put your faith in your unreliable machines and the evidence that science claims to retain.:rolleyes:

I'm not gonna get into another blah blah God doesnt exist thread or Holy Shroud isnt real thread so I'm stopping it here.

Pax Christi
Stephen

But it was tested and then they wouldnt allow more samples to be used to do more accurate tests, smells like they knew it all along and just didnt want it proved conclusively..
lol at the "unreliable machines" comment as well, next time I have a heart attack I'll rely on Jesus to come to my aid rather than the paramedic with the man made medical devices to save my life.

homer911

The Bible tells us that there as nothing remarkable about Jesus' appearance (I forget the specific reference) - by this its a fairly simple deduction that Jesus was like any other Jewish Galilean at the time - i.e. probably not Coloured, Chinese, Japanese or Indian. He did have a Jewish mother after all...

Adhamh

Prinz

Sorry if that came out wrong, but I don't think that he'd be infallible in his teachings. Sorry to drag this off topic.

prinz

Adhamh wrote: »

Prinz
Sorry if that came out wrong, but I don't think that he'd be infallible in his teachings. Sorry to drag this off topic.

No problem, it's just that a lot of people throw Papal infallibility around when in actual Pope Benedict would agree with what you said above.

"The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know. Therefore, I share with you these questions, these problems. I also suffer," he (Pope Benedict) said in his address, transcribed and published by the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano.

http://www.zenit.org/article-13698?l=english

Since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, this power has been used only once ex cathedra: in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.