Active Now

Malizz
Shuhak
Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » Who came up with the popular image of Jesus?

Who came up with the popular image of Jesus?

It's a clearly European-looking image — fair-skinned, light-haired, blue-eyed, his softly handsome demeanor suggesting a teen idol, if a serious-minded one. You’d figure a guy like that would have been a real sore thumb in first-century Judea. So where’d we get the idea that that’s Jesus?

Posted - January 18, 2018

Responses


  • 2657
    That's funny that you seem to be implying that you read whole chapters and relevant verses and let the Bible interpret the Bible yet you say that any interpretation as to the goat and ram are is just as valid as another. I guess ignorance is bliss.

    How has Jesus seen Abraham? 
    (John 8:56-58) Abraham your father rejoiced greatly at the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.” 57 Then the Jews said to him: “You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

    If you let the Bible interpret the Bible, is Jesus The God and never born, the firstborn of all creation, second born, some later creation?
      March 9, 2018 4:28 PM MST
    0

  • 1393
    We all pick from the Bible that which supports either the narrative we are spoonfed, to use your terminology, by our church or organisation or, if we're independent then the narrative we find most acceptable to us. For me,I accept from the Bible
    that which agrees with common sense, 
    that which agrees with what we know about our existence,
    what the Bible quotes as spoken by God,
    what the Bible quotes as spoken by Jesus during his earthly mission, and
    everything else from the Bible that does not contradict what I've listed.
    So my chosen narrative comes from all over the Bible.

    My chosen narrative is based on the following argument:
    If the universe has a creator, then God is its creator. As the creator of all humanity He must love all humanity and must want the best for all humanity. He must have sent guides to all humanity with the same essential message, that He is the creator and the all-knowing and that for their salvation here and in the hereafter people should do God's will as explained and exemplified by the guides sent to them, and that they should not follow their own whims and desires. These guides must have been sent to all peoples, in all ages and in all parts of the world and include great personalities like Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. If God exists, then the above is nothing but good, obvious common sense. If it makes good, obvious common sense then there is no reason not to believe in it and follow it.

      March 10, 2018 9:01 AM MST
    0

  • 2657
    Wrong, I wasn't raised in a religious household. Most of my relatives that are religious believe in the trinity, immortal souls being consciously tortured in a literal hell fire.

    If you let the Bible interpret itself as you claim you do and you read the whole chapter like you claim you did, you would not think that the ram could be anyone other than Medo-Persia and goat was anyone other than Greece. Read it again and compare it to history while you are at it.

    If you do that and can't understand something as simple as that, you sure cannot begin to understand Revelation.
    Pretending to be open minded when reading the Bible when actually reading with preconceived ideas like everything is just open to interpretation and one is just as valid as another is disingenuous at best.
      March 10, 2018 10:56 AM MST
    0

  • 1393
    I appreciate your eagerness to use the label "Wrong" as in "Wrong, I wasn't raised in a religious household." but I don't see where I said you were "raised in a religious household"

    I can see that it is a very important part of your doctrine [religious belief] to "think that the ram could be anyone other than Medo-Persia and goat was anyone other than Greece" For me, tremendously far more important are the reasoned arguments I outlined in the final paragraph of my last post. Those are the issues I would seek to establish agreement on first before anything else.
      March 10, 2018 11:52 AM MST
    0

  • 2657
    "I don't see where I said you were "raised in a religious household"
    "We all pick from the Bible that which supports either the narrative we are spoonfed, to use your terminology, by our church or organisation"

    I wasn't spoonfed so as to believe that the Bible says what it say like you were spoonfed to believe it's open to every interpretation. 

    (Luke 16:10) The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.


    QUOTE: [ can see that it is a very important part of your doctrine [religious belief] to "think that the ram could be anyone other than Medo-Persia and goat was anyone other than Greece" For me, tremendously far more important are the reasoned arguments I outlined in the final paragraph of my last post. Those are the issues I would seek to establish agreement on first before anything else.]

    Too me you claiming to have read the whole chapter and still not know is disturbing. On the other hand if you would have just admitted that you did not read it and that it didn't matter to you, would have been a sincere response. But claiming that there is no way to know and claiming to have read it is dishonest. 

    EDIT: THR REASON THE SUBJECT EVEN CAME UP IS YOUR ASSERTION THAT WHO THE WILD BEAST REPRESENT IS OPEN TO ANY INTERPRETATION BECAUSE MY2CENTS AND MYSELF DISAGREED ON SOMETHING.
    This post was edited by texasescimo at March 10, 2018 2:15 PM MST
      March 10, 2018 2:10 PM MST
    0

  • 1393
    "I wasn't spoonfed so as to believe that the Bible says what it say like you were spoonfed to believe it's open to every interpretation." >>>>  You'll need to show me the verse which urges you to go out of your way to try to be personally confrontational and offensive. Where did I say you were "spoonfed so as to believe that the Bible says what it say" The phrase I used was "the narrative we are spoonfed" A friendly suggestion: If reading my posts fills you with hatred and makes you confrontational then please don't read them. 

    "spoonfed to believe it's open to every interpretation." >>> Do we have to be spoonfed to believe that people speak different languages, have different heights or skin colour. We don't need to be spoonfed with that information. It's open for everyone to see. Similarly do we have to be spoonfed to believe that there are hundreds of different Christian sects. No, because it's open for everyone to see. Now if these hundreds of sects had identically the same interpretation of the Bible would they be split into different sects in the first place? Of course not. So why the confrontation when I stated the obvious, that there are numerous interpretations of the Bible? Was there really any need, or obvious basis for the confrontation? It sounds a bit bizarre.
      March 10, 2018 3:57 PM MST
    0

  • 16240
    They "Romanized" Him after Constantine. The Shroud is a fake, completely apart from radiocarbon dating - that style of weaving wasn't even invented until c.900 CE, and the Orthodox icons depicting Him as fair of skin and blue of eye predate it.
      March 5, 2018 1:43 AM MST
    0

  • 32656
    The style of weave in the Shroud is herring bone 3/1 and has been around since 800BC. 
      March 8, 2018 12:32 PM MST
    0

  • 6098
    Haha you must have been watching old Hollywood movies it seems! From the 1950s and 60s. I didn't know there still was a "popular" image but I think most of us make our own image that is meaningful to us.  
      March 5, 2018 5:06 AM MST
    1

  • 1393
    "most of us make our own image" ...erm but if there was just the one JC then there must surely be just the one image that is genuine, and the rest all false.
      March 5, 2018 12:26 PM MST
    0

  • 46117
    I think it was the same guy that designed the white Santa Claus.

    How about that white Easter Bunny?

    And the White Cupid?

    AND 

    When did he first pop up?   Then go from there.  What were the times like?   Probably that Jesus became blonder as America grew fonder of blondes.   And the Aryan, Christian race. 

    We want Jesus to look just like us. 

    Beautiful.

    Most think He looked more like this picture below.   

    In his book Racializing Jesus, Shawn Kelley states that the assignment of a specific race to Jesus has been a cultural phenomenon emanating from the higher levels of intellectual circles within societies, and he draws parallels between the seemingly different approaches within different settings.[41] Cain Hope Felder has argued that New Testament passages such as Galatians 3:28 express a universalism that goes beyond race, ethnicity or even religion.[42]
    Jesus with Nicodemus, by Tanner, 1899

    By the 19th century theories that Jesus was of the Aryan race, and in particular of Nordic appearance, were developed and later appealed to advocates of the new racial antisemitism, who wanted nothing Jewish about Jesus. Houston Stewart Chamberlain posited Jesus was of Amorite-Germanic extraction.[43] The Amorites were actually a Semitic people.[44][45][46] Madison Grant claimed Jesus for the Nordic race.[7]:48–51[47][48] This found its most extreme form in the Nazi theology of Positive Christianity. Scholars supporting the radical Aryan view also argued that being a Jew by religion was distinguishable from being a Jew by race or ethnicity.[49] These theories usually also include the reasoning that Jesus was Aryan because Galilee was supposedly a non-Jewish region speaking an unknown Indo-European language, but this has not gained scholarly acceptance (in fact, Galilee had a significant non-Jewish minority, but these spoke various local Semitic languages).[7]:48–51[50]

    The English writer Godfrey Higgins suggested in his book Anacalypsis (1836) that Jesus was a dark brown skinned Indo-Aryan from North India. In 1906 a German writer named Theodor Plange wrote a book titled Christ-an Indian? in which he argued that Jesus was an Indian and that the Christian gospel had originated in India.[51]

    By the 20th century, theories had also been proposed that Jesus was black, but not necessarily a descendant of any specific black African ethnicity, e.g. based on the argument that the ancient Israelites, as a group, were in whole or part originally a black people.[7]:43–50[52] Martin Luther King was a proponent of the "Black Christ" movement and identified the struggle of Jesus against the authorities of the time with the struggle of African Americans in the southern parts of the United States, as he questioned why the white church leaders did not voice concern for racial equality.[52] For some, this blackness was due to Jesus's identification with black people, not the color of his skin,[52] while others such as Albert Cleage argued that Jesus was ethnically black.[53]

    A study on the 2001 BBC series Son of God attempted to determine what Jesus's race and appearance may have been.[54] Assuming Jesus to be a Galilean Semite, the study concluded in conjunction with Mark Goodacre that his skin would have been "olive-coloured"[55] and "swarthy"[56]—these results were criticised by some media outlets for being "dismissive" and "dumbed down".[57][58] However, this type of analysis suggests, that even though Caucasian, Jesus may not have fit into all modern definitions of whiteness in the Western world.







    This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at March 5, 2018 11:19 PM MST
      March 5, 2018 11:14 PM MST
    0

  • 16240
    He wasn't Caucasian. Palestinian Jews are Levantine. The Arameans were black haired, brown of skin and eye. There were no fair-skinned Jews until well after the Great Diaspora which occurred during the Seleucid occupation of Judea - only two to three centuries before the birth of Christ,  ergo long before those racial characteristics had been thinned by outbreeding and natural selecton for less melanin.

    This is likely:


    This is arrant nonsense:
      March 6, 2018 8:17 PM MST
    0

  • 46117
    Yeah.   He was not a Vogue Model, that's for sure.

      March 6, 2018 8:26 PM MST
    0

  • 97
    Jesus was probably swarthy, dark hair & eyes.  Hair kept shorter.
      March 6, 2018 8:31 PM MST
    0

  • 2217
    In the middle ages most were illiterate, so they had to come up with images. The official artist probably only had Caucasian models to hand which would of course appeal to the masses. 
      March 7, 2018 5:24 AM MST
    0