How White Was My Savior?

B

BlaznFattyz

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Why has the portrayal of Jesus in art drifted far from the likelihood he was a brown-skinned Semitic Jew?

Shopping for nativity scenes? At Macy’s you have two options to choose from: "The Vatican Edition" and "The Byzantine Edition." The first comes with a set of white figurines, including a red-headed Mary, a brown-haired Joseph and a blue-eyed baby Jesus. In the second, all three are black, as are the shepherd and three wise men. Both cost $10, and more than likely, both are historically inaccurate...

Cont'd
 
BlaznFattyz said:
Why has the portrayal of Jesus in art drifted far from the likelihood he was a brown-skinned Semitic Jew?

Shopping for nativity scenes? At Macy’s you have two options to choose from: "The Vatican Edition" and "The Byzantine Edition." The first comes with a set of white figurines, including a red-headed Mary, a brown-haired Joseph and a blue-eyed baby Jesus. In the second, all three are black, as are the shepherd and three wise men. Both cost $10, and more than likely, both are historically inaccurate...

Cont'd
Click to expand...

What good would an olive skinned semitic savior do for germanic, gaullic and norse people, when trying to get them to convert? We make God in our image...:eek: ;)
 
I was in a museum, trying to remember where, the traveling exhibit was incredible...paintings of Jesus thru the ages. Large canvases absolutely gorgeous arranged by time. Not having any art history or art appreciation, I've learned to rent the headsets with the tape or that are activated as you get close to the pieces and walk and learn.

If I recall correctly the first semantic Jesus wasn't until like 1400, dark hair, brown eyes... Jesus is like G-d often is...created in our minds in our image.
 
pattimax said:
Historical inaccuracy is one of the big non-conversion reasons.
Click to expand...

Ah, the seed thrown onto the rocky ground...so shallow it never takes root, and the birds come and eat it up...yeah, you're going to have those kind of shallow minds who can't see past human error or bias. But if one wants to know God, skin color isn't going to matter much...;)
 
pattimax said:
Historical inaccuracy is one of the big non-conversion reasons.
Click to expand...
Namaste pattimax,

Can you expound on your thesis here?

Are you saying the paintings are turning people away?

Or are you referring to historical innacuracies in the texts?

And are there some sales quotas we are not meeting?

I don't see the church as having real issues converting, I think the problem lies in retainage.
 
wil said:
Namaste pattimax,

Can you expound on your thesis here?

Are you saying the paintings are turning people away?

Or are you referring to historical innacuracies in the texts?

And are there some sales quotas we are not meeting?

I don't see the church as having real issues converting, I think the problem lies in retainage.
Click to expand...

Greetings Wil:

One of the main disagreements that I have heard is the historical inaccuracies is concerning the image of Jesus. It had little to do with anything real. He looks Irish.

No, the artwork has nothing to do with it.

I was talking about living, breathing human-beings, not sales quotas.

The church has no problem converting, but those outside of the church have a problem listening.

Retainment? Good point.
I have to get up early, good night!
 
wil said:
I was in a museum, trying to remember where, the traveling exhibit was incredible...paintings of Jesus thru the ages. Large canvases absolutely gorgeous arranged by time. Not having any art history or art appreciation, I've learned to rent the headsets with the tape or that are activated as you get close to the pieces and walk and learn.

If I recall correctly the first semantic Jesus wasn't until like 1400, dark hair, brown eyes... Jesus is like G-d often is...created in our minds in our image.
Click to expand...
Gee, people getting upset over artists rendering the Son of Man (human form) in the form that the artist has seen humans? (How many of these European artists actually saw sematic people prior to 1400? How could they accurately paint what they haven't seen?) *shakes head*
 
The Orthodox Churchs' Icon Tradition holds that some 70 icons were written by St Luke (written, not painted – but I can't recall the reasoning).

Icon portraits should, in strict observance of the rule, not be made from the imagination, but from an existing icon, so there is a belief that a portrait of Christ has been handed down from apostolic times. One has to understand the rules governing icons, which are quite strict.

What is interesting is iconography was against Jewish Law, but appears to be OK in the Christian Tradition from the very outset.

The Fathers argued that as God had taken human form, it was acceptable to present a human portrait – but the rule against an image of God was observed. Michaelangelo broke the rule in his famous painting of the Creation in the Sistine Chapel, with God reaching out to Adam.

The famous icon of the Trinity by Rublev also shows three figues, but as the Holy Spirit is presented in human form, it is assumed that all three are angels representing the Trinity.

Waffle off.
 
Maybe the idea of a white Jesus comes from this passage:

"And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
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. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;" - Rev 1:13-14
 
Under Anderson 360 on CNN.com last night I saw a video clip on the paintings of Jesus. And noticed tonight...
What is a Christian? "360°" examines why followers may have different views on what defines Christianity. Tune in at 10 p.m. ET.
Click to expand...
 
I want to say is it's highly unlikely Jesus even had long hair. Semitic culture did not accept men with long hair, a long haired Jesus was created in the image of Romans and Greeks, a preferred look. Could be wrong?
 
i tend to agree with the person that suggested people will paint what they see around them. if i'm italian, living in italy, my paintings of jesus and his facial features will probably appear italian, especially if there are no jews around. and most paintings of jesus were done in latin europe i believe, so most of our influence stems from that. personally i never considered jesus white. just from reading the bible jesus had a definite distinguishable look of being jewish and from nazareth, and from all that walking around with no home, he probably had a mean tan.
 
Thomas said:
The Fathers argued that as God had taken human form, it was acceptable to present a human portrait – but the rule against an image of God was observed. Michaelangelo broke the rule in his famous painting of the Creation in the Sistine Chapel, with God reaching out to Adam.
Click to expand...

Did Michaelangelo suffer any repercussions because of this? (painting of the Creation)
 
pattimax said:
Did Michaelangelo suffer any repercussions because of this? (painting of the Creation)
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're thinking of the fact that the area where God is looks like a brain.

Some people said that Michaelangelo was implying that God is made up in our heads.

(or something like that...)
 
Prober said:
Perhaps you're thinking of the fact that the area where God is looks like a brain.

Some people said that Michaelangelo was implying that God is made up in our heads.

(or something like that...)
Click to expand...
I think it is in reference to the power of thought, how we create our reality with our mind, G-d reaching out of the frontal lobe...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top