Was Jesus Dark Skinned (virgin, Buddhism, soul, America, church)

[maike]

Picture at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcfa.htm

I remember seeing a picture put together showing what Jesus would most likely have looked like. He was basically shown as a real dark skinned person.
Does your church now present him the way he would most likely have appeared or still as a light skinned and haired european ????
Isn't it wrong to represent Jesus as something he wasnt and worship that image ??
I hope to get your thoughts on this

[standing_on_one_foot]

He would have been semitic, yes. But whether he was black, white, or green with purple dots isn't the point, the point is his teachings, his message, etc. I should hope people aren't just worshipping an image, if it comes to that.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by maike

Picture at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcfa.htm

I remember seeing a picture put together showing what Jesus would most likely have looked like. He was basically shown as a real dark skinned person.
Does your church now present him the way he would most likely have appeared or still as a light skinned and haired european ????
Isn't it wrong to represent Jesus as something he wasnt and worship that image ??
I hope to get your thoughts on this

Buddhism flourished in China, Korea, Japan, Tibet and Southeast Asia much more so than it did in its native India. Even tho we all know that the historical Buddha would have had Indian features, he is depicted with Chinese features by Chinese buddhist artisans - slanted eyes and lucky long earlobes and all. Korean buddhas look more Korean. Tibetan buddhas look more Tibetan. Is that wrong?

At the National Basilica in DC, there are statues of the the Virgin Mary with the baby Jesus from India who look Indian, from the Philipines who look Philipino, from Latin America who look Hispanic, from Africa who look African. Is that wrong?

Are people worshiping the historical beings or are they worshiping the Divine with which they better relate when they see it represented in their own image? Is Christ the body that the historical Jesus inhabited or is Christ something much more personal than that?

[Seyorni]

I'd assume a middle-eastern Semite would have the olive skin and black hair of, well, your typical swarthy, middle eastern Semite.

[huajiro]

I have seen him represented as a black man in a Baptist Church. It doesn't matter if he is depicted as a woman, a 7 foot guy, or a green person.....I believe that what matters is that people can relate to him and get his message (those that don't include giving money to the Church anyway)

[Melody]

Originally Posted by maike

Picture at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcfa.htm

I remember seeing a picture put together showing what Jesus would most likely have looked like. He was basically shown as a real dark skinned person.
Does your church now present him the way he would most likely have appeared or still as a light skinned and haired european ????
Isn't it wrong to represent Jesus as something he wasnt and worship that image ??
I hope to get your thoughts on this

Since God created us in His image and we come in all shapes, sizes and colors, I see no problem with visualizing Jesus as we wish to see Him or portray him. As someone said earlier though, he probably had the typical middle eastern semitic features and coloring.

Melody

[cfer]

I agree that he was pretty much the general description of a middle easterner.

But I also agree with the general sentiment on this thread where everyone is basically saying "Who cares? It's His teachings that we're following, not the image."

If people want to picture Jesus in a way that is more comfortable and more familiar to them, all the more power to them. If they truly follow His teachings, they would realize that physical characteristics are nothing of importance. It's what's in the soul that matters.