Skip to comments.
'Cross' shows Jesus as being a black man
Yahoo News ^
| October 25, 2006
| SANDY COHEN,
Posted on 10/25/2006 6:22:33 PM PDT by Nachum
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-206 next last
To: Nachum
If the most presing concern they have is that Jesus phyically resemble them, then they don't get it and they have larger issues they need to address.
He wasn't blue eyed, with blond hair and a perfectly bronzed tan.
Neither was he black.
Get over it people and actually read the message he was trying to give you instead.
121
posted on
10/25/2006 8:08:58 PM PDT
by
Soul Seeker
(Kobach: Amnesty is going from an illegal to a legal position, without imposing the original penalty.)
Comment #122 Removed by Moderator
To: Nachum
LOS ANGELES - It's a familiar image for millions of Christians: Jesus Christ, with a crown of thorns, hanging from the cross. What color is he? In a controversial new film opening Friday, he is black.So does this mean that suddenly chr*stianity is a "good" religion and liberals have to respect it?
123
posted on
10/25/2006 8:10:49 PM PDT
by
Zionist Conspirator
('Elleh toledot Noach, Noach 'ish tzaddiq tamim hayah bedorotayv; 'et Ha'Eloqim hithallekh Noach.)
To: Nachum
Jesus probably looked like THIS guy:
124
posted on
10/25/2006 8:12:09 PM PDT
by
Clemenza
(I have such a raging clue!)
To: Nachum
"It's very important because (the film) is going to provide an image of Jesus for African-Americans
This is nothing new. Ive seen images of Jesus as Black in African American churches for a long time.
I think image could be the operative word here. The New Testament, if taken as a purely historical document, it clearly states that Jesus was a Jew, not just religiously but also ethnically as descendent of the House of David.
But if the Christian concept of the Holy Trinity and man created in the image of God holds meaning to the faithful, then it would make sense for God; Father and Son to bear a physical resemblance common to the believer and I see nothing wrong with that.
"The message is that color, a colored Jesus Christ, doesn't matter," he says
If hes talking about image and perception based on spirituality and not a historical perspective, then hes right. But if color doesnt matter then whats the point?
is almost always white, like the fair-haired savior painted by Leonardo Da Vinci in "The Last Supper" in 1495.
Historically Jesus was a Jew and physically would have resembled the characteristics and features common among Jews of his time and geographical region. He would probably not have been blond and blue eyed but the historical Jesus probably didnt look like a Namibian either.
Some believe that the Egyptians were Black including Cleopatra, but Cleopatra was neither Egyptian nor Black, she was actually Greek.
Yet if it is right for modern day Black Christians to express their image of Jesus as Black, then what is wrong with Europeans of the 15th Century expressing their image of Jesus as looking much like themselves?
race has to be a factor because race is a big predicament in American life."
This is where he looses me. Race and religion was a factor from a historical perspective then but only because the historical Jesus posed a threat to the Jewish religious establishment and to a lesser extent the Roman ruling authority that supported the existing Jewish establishment who supported Roman rule; the Romans not really caring what religion anyone practiced as long as one paid taxes and paid homage to the State much like today.
But as a Jew bucking the religious status quo and as a non-Roman, his following posed a threat to the established orders, but not because he was an African Black skinned person. He was not persecuted based only on the color of his skin.
I think its OK for Blacks to draw some spiritual analogies here, as they often do with the enslavement of the Isralites in Egypt, but I think its a stretch from a historical perspective to think that Jesus was executed because he had a Black skin. His execution was not a lynching of a Black man analogous to the lynching of Black men in the post Civil War in the US.
125
posted on
10/25/2006 8:13:10 PM PDT
by
Caramelgal
(Too annoyed right now for a tagline. Check back later.)
To: The_Reader_David
Thank you! May I know the source of the information, as I am a history enthusiast. Thanks again.
126
posted on
10/25/2006 8:13:12 PM PDT
by
hardworking
(Just once, I'd like to vote for a candidate who's actually had to meet a payroll.)
To: hardworking
Jesus was a Jew from the Middle East. Pretty easy to guess what color he was.. And man, imagine his NOSE!
That is the single funniest post I have read in a long time!!!
127
posted on
10/25/2006 8:17:32 PM PDT
by
Zionist Conspirator
('Elleh toledot Noach, Noach 'ish tzaddiq tamim hayah bedorotayv; 'et Ha'Eloqim hithallekh Noach.)
To: Nachum
This piece of commercial trash is nothing more than an "entertainment vehicle" aspitring to "blockbuster" status, whose script and pre-screenings have been focusgrouped to death, and which is targeted at a particular segment of the movie going audience that the bean counters in Hollyweird expect to respond and swallow the hook. Who might that be? I'd say, blacks (of course) but also guilt-ridden urban whites, religious and non-religious, as well as mindless new-agers (all of them white, as we know!) Whatever, that's only my guess, and you can bet that the money people have those expectations scientifically charted out.
128
posted on
10/25/2006 8:18:10 PM PDT
by
Revolting cat!
(We all need someone we can bleed on...)
To: Petronski
I am with you....It doesn't matter.
That said logically, he was most probably pigmented similarly to others native to that region. Thus not European or African or Asian, but Jewish. Yep, my Savior was a jew (what would OBL say?).
But to me, it is so much rubbish to worry about the skin color of the Son of God who died for my sins. I am just thankful he did.
129
posted on
10/25/2006 8:18:22 PM PDT
by
Lawdoc
(Pray for our troops and our President. Also, Vote Early, Vote Often!)
To: RobbyS
The Romans weren't really racist in the modern sense. In fact, the City of Rome appears to have been founded by a mixed gang of exiles and outlaws from a number of different tribes. They had to invent their own tribes in the early years in order to run the city as they felt it should be run.
They took slaves, like everyone else, but it wasn't a racial issue. And eventually Britons and Gauls could become Romans.
The Jews were different because they were stubborn about their religion. And they wanted to crucify Jesus because they thought his claim to be the Messiah was blasphemous.
Pontius Pilate had to agree for political reasons, because if he didn't go along he would have lost his job, accused by the Jews of being soft on revolutionaries.
130
posted on
10/25/2006 8:18:40 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Cicero
P.S. Jews could become Roman citizens, too, and many of them were.
St. Paul was a Roman citizen, which was why he had to be taken back to Rome to be judged.
131
posted on
10/25/2006 8:20:09 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: CWOJackson
Directed by Mel Gibson, starring Danny Glover as JC.Lethal Weapon VI.
To: Nachum
It's a familiar image for millions of Christians: Jesus Christ, with a crown of thorns, hanging from the cross. What color is he? In a controversial new film opening Friday, he is black. Controversial? In Asia, he's Asian, In Africa, Black, (take your pick between tall slender East African or stocky thick built West African. In Europe, you have more choices -- blue eyed Scandinavian or olive skinned Mediterranean or many shades in between.
It's nothing new. Depictions to fit with the local culture is as old as Christianity. Christ has been depicted as virtually every race and ethnicity, and unlike Mohamed, Christ does not care if or how we depict Him. And if we care, we are totally missing His message.
133
posted on
10/25/2006 8:22:40 PM PDT
by
Ditto
To: Jorge
White hair and skin, fire colored eyes...
Was Jesus an albino???
To: Nachum; mhking
To: Cicero
The Roman's weren't racist in the modern sense, but they certainly thought of the Jews as a separate race. But their slavery was a matter of taking the spoils of war. There were slaves of every race. In our culture, only the blacks were thought of as a servile race. Sort of the same way that the English though of the Irish.
136
posted on
10/25/2006 8:25:50 PM PDT
by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: NorCalRepub
137
posted on
10/25/2006 8:26:34 PM PDT
by
ECM
(Government is a make-work program for lawyers.)
To: Nachum
Jesus was a homeboy and dog is my copilot!
138
posted on
10/25/2006 8:26:37 PM PDT
by
Revolting cat!
(We all need someone we can bleed on...)
To: Cicero
That's not a problem. But if the film pretends that Jesus was condemned because of racial tensions, then that's another matter. That would be a significant falsification, unless I misunderstand what theya are suggesting.If they are saying that he was killed due solely or primarily to racial prejudice, that's a distortion. But most religious conflicts have, or develop, an ethnic component. The Romans almost certainly looked different from the Jews, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Pharisees were lighter-skinned, or otherwise had distinct features, from other groups of Jews. Most cultures with a caste system base it in part on appearance, because otherwise it would be too easy to "pass."
Not to mention that half of Jesus' genes came directly from God the Father, so there's no reason to believe he was the exact same hue as Mary. It's a detail as unimportant as whether he was short or tall. If Jesus didn't look like Jean-Claude LaMarre (pictured), he almost certainly didn't look like Jim Caviezel, either.
If the movie doesn't distort the central message of Christ's sacrifice, and helps bring it to a new audience, I don't see the problem. Just as I didn't have a problem with The Last Temptation of Christ or The Passion. Looking at the peripheral questions in new ways to find new insight or bring a new audience to the central message of the Gospels is as old as Christianity itself.
To: Zionist Conspirator
That is the single funniest post I have read in a long time!!!
I must admit that, as a member of that heritage, and a parent who has paid for a nose job or two....I felt it was OK to make the comment ;)
140
posted on
10/25/2006 8:35:15 PM PDT
by
hardworking
(Just once, I'd like to vote for a candidate who's actually had to meet a payroll.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-206 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson