And what if Jesus was black?

[Mea Culpa]

Well--why not? It's not like we have a photo. I think he was. Makes sense. If not black, then definitely Arab. There's no way in hell that he was this blonde-haired, blue-eyed caucasian that most picture books point him out to be. The man was a Middle-Easterner. But hey--if you can prove me wrong without ranting and giving me pages of the Bible, then I'll listen. Note: His race matters naught to me--I just want to hear what your answers to this proposition are.

Does it really matter? Jesus dwells in the hearts of man. If you are a Montalone like in the Bruce Olsson book Bruchko, He was a native of Columbia.

Jesus was a Jew, but He came to all men, He talked to the Samaritan lady when every other Jew wouldn't talk to her at all.

So there ya go. It doesn't even matter. If we focus on what Jesus looked like, His skin type etc, we are focused on the wrong thing.

 

[Mimi]

Well--why not? It's not like we have a photo. I think he was. Makes sense. If not black, then definitely Arab. There's no way in hell that he was this blonde-haired, blue-eyed caucasian that most picture books point him out to be. The man was a Middle-Easterner. But hey--if you can prove me wrong without ranting and giving me pages of the Bible, then I'll listen. Note: His race matters naught to me--I just want to hear what your answers to this proposition are.

For all I care He was green or purple....it is all about the inside.....weird question really

 

[nb_christseeker]

He was probably mostly indistinguishable from any other Jew in his group of apostles. Judas Iscariot, that devil, was hired to point him out with a kiss. Just your typical Jew, and probably not extremely attractive based on Isaiah:

Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
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.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

 

[Devoted to the Lord!]

Well--why not? It's not like we have a photo. I think he was. Makes sense. If not black, then definitely Arab. There's no way in hell that he was this blonde-haired, blue-eyed caucasian that most picture books point him out to be. The man was a Middle-Easterner. But hey--if you can prove me wrong without ranting and giving me pages of the Bible, then I'll listen. Note: His race matters naught to me--I just want to hear what your answers to this proposition are.

What I don't get is why the original poster says "I think he was. Makes sense"
But doesn't say why she thinks it would make sense. She obviously wants him to have been black for some reason, perhaps the orginal poster is black? Who knows.

 

[nb_christseeker]

Rev 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
Rev 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
Rev 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

We know what he looks like now...

 

[Asar'el]

The danger of an image of Christ is we start thinking more about the image than about Christ. I am convinced that is the reason no description of Him is given in the Scripture. Trying to imagine Him physically begins to reduce Him from who He is.

We know what he looks like now...

We still have no idea - the little we have is too dangerous to try and expand into something more. Try looking at the sun sometime, when it is shining in his strength.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

The beginning of a break of this commandment is the mind; the image, or the likeness, first forms there; and it is to be guarded against.

 

[Mother Vashti]

Good point, Asar'el.

 

[ps139]

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

The beginning of a break of this commandment is the mind; the image, or the likeness, first forms there; and it is to be guarded against.

This is talking about idolatry - no one in their right mind worships a painting or statue of Jesus rather than Jesus Himself. This is directed against crafting idols and worshipping them.

 

[Asar'el]

This is talking about idolatry - no one in their right mind worships a painting or statue of Jesus rather than Jesus Himself. This is directed against crafting idols and worshipping them.

A common reply, and foolish.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Idolatry begins with the imagination. To think it meant only a sculpted idol is to miss a camel of errors while looking at a gnat.

 

[ps139]

A common reply, and foolish.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Idolatry begins with the imagination. To think it meant only a sculpted idol is to miss a camel of errors while looking at a gnat.

To think that artwork is idolatry is the most foolish thing we have going here.

Idolatry necessarily involves worship. "Latria," one of the root words of "idolatry" is the Greek word for "worship." Therefore, if it is not worshipped, it cannot be an idol.

Your passage from Romans 1 is an unfortunate history of some people's hearts but really does not support what you are trying to say.

 

[Asar'el]

To think that artwork is idolatry is the most foolish thing we have going here.

Idolatry necessarily involves worship. "Latria," one of the root words of "idolatry" is the Greek word for "worship." Therefore, if it is not worshipped, it cannot be an idol.

What a strange view!

eidololatreia:
Idolatry; the worship of false gods.

Comes from

eidolon:
- an image, likeness,
a) whatever represents the form of an object, either real or imaginary
b) used of the shades of the departed, apparitions, spectres, phantoms of the mind, etc.
- the image of an heathen god
- a false god

and, as you say,

latreia:
- service rendered for hire
a) any service or ministration: the service of God
- the service and worship of God according to the requirements of the Levitical law
- to perform sacred services

From where would you get the idea that an idol (eidolon) is the object of worship, and not the thing it is an image of? An image of a false god is not an idol unless it's worshipped?

Your passage from Romans 1 is an unfortunate history of some people's hearts but really does not support what you are trying to say.

It does indeed support what I say - what the bible declares: idolatry begins in the heart; and it is in no way limited to a physical act or sacred 'rite' made before a specific physical image!

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

To think, an offence to man (for that is what adultery is) begins with a look, and in the heart; and it is not restricted to the physical act; to make any less of idolatry, an offence against God, is that not foolishness?

 

[LovelyLocasico]

In response to the question, "What if Jesus was black?" My answer is: Then he was black

Scientifically speaking, though, the different races such as black and white are social constructs and don't really exist in science. There isn't enough genetic difference to create more than one race of humans so only one race truly exists biologically and that is the Human Race, or as the Evolutionary Science states: Homo Sapiens sapiens.

 

[SUNSTONE]

I think every culture displays Jesus according to there culture. White for the whites, spanish for the spanish, etc.

To me this makes total since, because Jesus potrays Himself in me, as a mature, way wiser, me.
I thought it was strange at first, but my pastor said the same thing in a sermon, confirming the truth to me.

Ever see the movies where God, the devil, and the person being tempted are all together. They are all potrayed by the same character.
To me, that is how Jesus is, and that is how the devil is to.
Jesus in my minds eye is calm and wise, the devil rants and is angry.
The devil makes excuses, what ever angle he can get.

 

[nb_christseeker]

good point sunstone. if Jesus does in fact live in me, then when I'm living the christian life as I should, Jesus looks like me, and I look like Jesus. sorta. =) there, now we have all our questions answered. Lets all go out and live Jesus.

 

[Asar'el]

good point sunstone. if Jesus does in fact live in me, then when I'm living the christian life as I should, Jesus looks like me, and I look like Jesus. sorta. =) there, now we have all our questions answered. Lets all go out and live Jesus.

The physical appearance of Christ has nothing to do with our spiritual walk with Him; the above foolishness (Jesus looks like me) does nothing to address this. Christ does not conform to our appearance! We are to strive to be like Him - in spirit and in truth.

 

[nb_christseeker]

the above foolishness (Jesus looks like me) does nothing to address this.

that's why I said "sort of", its not really. To try to quantify what Jesus "looks like" is just about impossible. But think about how when the disciples said "it will suffice to show us the Father" and jesus was like "if you have seen me you have seen the Father." So if a person is living the perfect christian life, say as Paul might have been, when they saw Paul, they were in a large way seeing Jesus, in that Paul loved one another even as Christ loved Paul (according to Christ's commandment). So when people were around Paul, they experienced the love of Christ to a certain extent. That's the only way I mean when I say "look like" Jesus - the way in whichwe interact with one antoher.

 

[Mimi]

In response to the question, "What if Jesus was black?" My answer is: Then he was black

Scientifically speaking, though, the different races such as black and white are social constructs and don't really exist in science. There isn't enough genetic difference to create more than one race of humans so only one race truly exists biologically and that is the Human Race, or as the Evolutionary Science states: Homo Sapiens sapiens.

YAY....Amen to that. Long live the ecological diversity of earth. That is why we are so beautiful multicolored

Don't ya just LOVE evolution's way!!

 

[ps139]

What a strange view!

eidololatreia:
Idolatry; the worship of false gods.

Comes from

eidolon:
- an image, likeness,
a) whatever represents the form of an object, either real or imaginary
b) used of the shades of the departed, apparitions, spectres, phantoms of the mind, etc.
- the image of an heathen god
- a false god

and, as you say,

latreia:
- service rendered for hire
a) any service or ministration: the service of God
- the service and worship of God according to the requirements of the Levitical law
- to perform sacred services

From where would you get the idea that an idol (eidolon) is the object of worship, and not the thing it is an image of? An image of a false god is not an idol unless it's worshipped?

The pagans of the OT would worship the creation of their own hands. Other pagan cultures in the world have things called “fetishes” (not the same connotation as modern-day usage) They would carry these objects around and believe that the objects generated for them some sort of power or protection.

With an idol, there are, as you posted, 2 definitions. One can be a simple image or likeness. We are talking about the false god idol. So it is still an idol, technically when my little sister draws a picture of our cat, thats an idol, but not in the negative and most commonly used sense. When we speak of idol we associate it with worship, (“I idolize that baeball player, he is my idol...we all know that Derek Jeter is not an ‘image.’”). So in that sense, an image is not “idolatrous” unless it is worshipped, and that is really what we are talking about here, idolatry. We could split hairs with definitions and semantics all day, but lets not do that.

It does indeed support what I say - what the bible declares: idolatry begins in the heart; and it is in no way limited to a physical act or sacred 'rite' made before a specific physical image!




But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

To think, an offence to man (for that is what adultery is) begins with a look, and in the heart; and it is not restricted to the physical act; to make any less of idolatry, an offence against God, is that not foolishness?

It begins in the heart as do all feelings. But how can idolatry exist without an object of worship? It is the worship of something other than God.

I originally said that Romans 1 had nothing to do with the fact that you implied that images/artwork of Jesus could be idolatrous, which is absolutely false.

 

[GenemZ]

Well--why not? It's not like we have a photo. I think he was. Makes sense. If not black, then definitely Arab. There's no way in hell that he was this blonde-haired, blue-eyed caucasian that most picture books point him out to be. The man was a Middle-Easterner. But hey--if you can prove me wrong without ranting and giving me pages of the Bible, then I'll listen. Note: His race matters naught to me--I just want to hear what your answers to this proposition are.

First.... this is a Christian Only section. You are an Atheist. What are you doing here?

Jesus broke bread and said... "This is my body." The bread they had back then was only whole grain. They had no refined "white flour." Yet, the bread was no pumpernickle, either. Not black. Jesus was your typical Jewish look. He was not black, and he was not white. Well tanned look, most likely.

And, another reason to know he was not different from the typical Jew, was that Judas had to point him out with a kiss. If he was black (not typical of Jews) Judas would not need to have done such a thing... Jesus fit right in with how he looked.

And, one more thing. Jesus was from the line of King David. And, David's son Absalom was famous for having red hair. I am trying to locate the passage that reveals this. My pastor teaches from the Hebrew text and showed us one day that Absalom had red hair. Hardly the color of hair found on a black raced people. David himself was described as follows:

" Jesse sent and brought him. David had a healthy reddish complexion and beautiful eyes, and was fine-looking. The Lord said [to Samuel], Arise, anoint him; this is he." 1 Samuel 16:12 amplified trans

I think its safe to say, that David was not a black man? Jesus was from the line of David.

Grace in peace, GeneZ

 

[Bonhoffer]

Well--why not? It's not like we have a photo. I think he was. Makes sense. If not black, then definitely Arab. There's no way in hell that he was this blonde-haired, blue-eyed caucasian that most picture books point him out to be. The man was a Middle-Easterner. But hey--if you can prove me wrong without ranting and giving me pages of the Bible, then I'll listen. Note: His race matters naught to me--I just want to hear what your answers to this proposition are.

I strongly doubt He was black in the sense Martin Luther King was black. All we know was that He was Jewish. I would say He was tanned. Please dont kill me for this but he probably looked similar to Bin Laden in his younger days.