Why Must Jesus Be Painted White?

[CV75]

Eureka! Us artists crave attention... LOL

 

Fruit still life:

 

 

 

Cat from life, age 9:

[CV75]

I like the apple. That's better than what I could paint at 7

 

With luv,

BD

It's supposed to be a pomegranate!!! (LOL)...

[BlueDreams]

It's cool that you still have copies of these after all those years

[CV75]

That's tons better then I can paint now.

No, you just paint differently!

[BlueDreams]

It's supposed to be a pomegranate!!! (LOL)...

 

Well at least it stilll looks like fruit! You should have said it was from the tree of knowledge and gotten all deep with your fruit still life. I would have thought you were some wise and spiritual 7 year old.

Edited January 27, 2014 by BlueDreams

[CV75]

It's cool that you still have copies of these after all those years

They were hidden away in my mother's things (she died almost 20 year ago); my brother gave me a box of miscellaneous stuff several years ago and these were in there. I kept them under a spare bed with other paintings and my daughter went rummaging a few months ago looking for something to hang on her children's' walls. She already had some other things my mother had done and found these and I told her to (please!) take them. All of a sudden everybody wanted a copy (and I'm not even dead yet!). So to keep the peace I had to go have them digitized, copied onto matte so they look original, and keep the originals.... ay, ay, ay....

[CV75]

Well at least it stilll looks like fruit! You should have said it was from the tree of knowledge and gotten all deep with your fruit still life. I would have thought you were some wise and spiritual 7 year old.

Oh yeah--that's what i meant to say! (and yes,I it really was just an apple...)

Edited January 27, 2014 by CV75

[merman]

The father of Christ was God the immortal father, so how can you say that he should appear middle eastern? His appearance could have been different than his followers since only his mortal mother was of middle eastern descent. I thought that this was common knowledge.

[mfbukowski]

Just to throw a little Mormon folklore into the mix.  A long time ago, I can't even remember the date, but the Oakland temple was closed for quite a while for renovation.  So some in our ward arranged a trip down to the Los Angeles temple.  While we were there, the rumor I heard is that there was a painting of Jesus being baptized by John in the baptistry.  I was told that when David O McKay saw the painting he said that the painting was the closest likeness of what Jesus really looked like he had ever seen.  So of course, I wandered down to the baptistry and sure enough there is one wall painted depicting the baptism of Christ on it.  To this day, I remember what Christ looked like.  He was indeed nothing like any other painting of Christ that I had ever seen.  He was more rough.  Definitely more ethnic. Strong features, but definitely not what I would call handsome.

 

Has anyone else ever heard this?  Has anyone else ever seen the painting in the baptistry in the Los Angeles temple?  I have never seen a reproduction of the mural in any church publication.

I see it weekly at least.

 

It is not a painting but actually a mosaic.  In my opinion he looks quite white and has redish hair.

[Calm]

The father of Christ was God the immortal father, so how can you say that he should appear middle eastern? His appearance could have been different than his followers since only his mortal mother was of middle eastern descent. I thought that this was common knowledge.

If Jesus had looked very different from his adopted father, Joseph, I think it likely there would have been more challenges claiming his illegitimacy than there were.

But perhaps I am just unaware of them. Anyone know how widespread the claims of Mary's infidelity were?

There are also comments in the gospels that hint of an attitude that there was nothing special about Jesus, just a man from Nazareth, they know him and his brothers, why should they see him as anything different? My impression is that most, if not all until it was taught he was the Son of God, assumed he was Joseph's son. If so, he couldn't have been too different from the rest of the family.

For example:

54And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Edited January 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Found this very interesting in light of this subject.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/26/dna-test-of-7000-year-old-tooth-overturns-popular-image-of-light-skinned-european-hunter-gatherers/

[mormonnewb]

If Jesus had looked very different from his adopted father, Joseph, I think it likely there would have been more challenges claiming his illegitimacy than there were.

But perhaps I am just unaware of them. Anyone know how widespread the claims of Mary's infidelity were?

There are also comments in the gospels that hint of an attitude that there was nothing special about Jesus, just a man from Nazareth, they know him and his brothers, why should they see him as anything different? My impression is that most, if not all until it was taught he was the Son of God, assumed he was Joseph's son. If so, he couldn't have been too different from the rest of the family.

For example:

54And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

To bolster this claim, Judas had to kiss Jesus to identify him to the guard that came to arrest him at Gesemene. There would be no need to give a special sign to identify someone who looked remarkably different.

[azch]

Is Jesus a Muslim Prophet? http://www.scribd.com/doc/193487618/IS-PROPHET-JESUS-AS-A-MUSLIM-PROPHET

 

Bible says that woman must cover head and wear veil

http://www.scribd.com/doc/194530800/BIBLE-SAYS-THAT-WOMAN-MUST-COVER-HEAD-AND-WEAR-VEIL

[CV75]

To bolster this claim, Judas had to kiss Jesus to identify him to the guard that came to arrest him at Gesemene. There would be no need to give a special sign to identify someone who looked remarkably different.

But it was also dark, crowded, and those who came after Him may not have known who He was no matter how "unique" He may have looked. We should also consider that He may not have been the only one that looked like Him in the crowd. I also think there may have been an element of showmanship, spite, or formal requirement for claiming the bounty in Judas explicitly identifying Him.

[mormonnewb]

But it was also dark, crowded, and those who came after Him may not have known who He was no matter how "unique" He may have looked. We should also consider that He may not have been the only one that looked like Him in the crowd. I also think there may have been an element of showmanship, spite, or formal requirement for claiming the bounty in Judas explicitly identifying Him.

Should we also consider that it might have been during a lighting storm or they may have been in a disco with strobe lights? Why wouldn't we just assume the most logical reading from the text rather than strain at gnats to find SOME way to make Jesus white? There must be some reason that makes us cling to an idea that is almost surely WRONG.

Here is what Wikipedia says about the issue:

In 2001, the television series Son of God used one of three first-century Jewish skulls from a leading department of forensic science in Israel to depict Jesus in a new way.[72] A face was constructed using forensic anthropology by Richard Neave, a retired medical artist from the Unit of Art in Medicine at the University of Manchester.[73] The face that Neave constructed suggested that Jesus would have had a broad face and large nose, and differed significantly from the traditional depictions of Jesus in renaissance art.[74] Additional information about Jesus' skin color and hair was provided by Mark Goodacre, a New Testament scholar and professor at Duke University.[74] Using third-century images from a synagogue—the earliest pictures of Jewish people[75]—Goodacre proposed that Jesus' skin color would have been darker and swarthier than his traditional Western image. He also suggested that he would have had short, curly hair and a short cropped beard.[76] This is also confirmed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where Paul the Apostle states that it is "disgraceful" for a man to have long hair.[77] As Paul knew many of the disciples and members of Jesus' family, it is unlikely that he would have written such a thing had Jesus had long hair.[76] Although not literally the face of Jesus,[73] the result of the study determined that Jesus' skin would have been more olive-colored than white,[74] and that he would have looked like a typical Galilean Semite. Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus's disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument is that if Jesus's physical appearance had differed markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to identify.[76]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus

Now, I do understand that there are some issues about which we must see through the "eyes of faith." Why is Jesus's physical appearance one of them?

Edited January 28, 2014 by mormonnewb

[volgadon]

Should we also consider that it might have been during a lighting storm or they may have been in a disco with strobe lights? Why wouldn't we just assume the most logical reading from the text rather than strain at gnats to find SOME way to make Jesus white? There must be some reason that makes us cling to an idea that is almost surely WRONG.

 

 

There is nothing at all illogical or strained about a nighttime setting, let along one without street lighting! Add in to that mix the almost complete absence of portraiture, and you can see why they would want to be certain of getting the right man before it was too late.

[CV75]

Now, I do understand that there are some issues about which we must see through the "eyes of faith." Why is Jesus's physical appearance one of them?

Jesus’ physical appearance simply isn’t an article or object of faith, nor a deterrent to faith (for me anyway).

[K-2]

I thought I would mention something I came across on Reddit not too long ago. Tom Phillips, a former Stake President now gone apostate, said that the late Elder Harold G. Hillam, once a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, described the appearance of Jesus to him one time:

"Harold said to me, 'The Savior doesn't look like the paintings we have of him. He has no beard, his eyes are blue and his hair fair.' "

[Tarski]

Didn't Joseph Smith give a vision based description of Jesus as blue eyed and quite white in other ways? didn't he indicate that the Father was more or less identical in appearance? 

 

The whole topic of how people picture Christ and God fascinates me.

 

If Christ was a swarthy Palestinian, then would the same be true of the Eternal Father? That is puzzling given how infinitely God predates the biologically contingent genetics that underlies the middle eastern physiognomy.

 

Frankly, I am almost offended by these modern "headshot" Christ portraits that people often have in their homes. It is not just the implicit racism that is offensive but I am more embarrassed by the thoughtless silliness of it. It is hard to respect the intelligence of people who put up such pictures.  Just who is that a picture of? On what basis do we all think "oh, that is a picture of Jesus"? Who do they picture when they pray, call Him to mind or otherwise enjoy their presumptive personal relationship with Jesus? The guy in the picture?

[mormonnewb]

Didn't Joseph Smith give a vision based description of Jesus as blue eyed and quite white in other ways? didn't he indicate that the Father was more or less identical in appearance?

The whole topic of how people picture Christ and God fascinates me.

If Christ was a swarthy Palestinian, then would the same be true of the Eternal Father? That is puzzling given how infinitely God predates the biologically contingent genetics that underlies the middle eastern physiognomy.

Frankly, I am almost offended by these modern "headshot" Christ portraits that people often have in their homes. It is not just the implicit racism that is offensive but I am more embarrassed by the thoughtless silliness of it. It is hard to respect the intelligence of people who put up such pictures. Just who is that a picture of? On what basis do we all think "oh, that is a picture of Jesus"? Who do they picture when they pray, call Him to mind or otherwise enjoy their presumptive personal relationship with Jesus? The guy in the picture?

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Jesus and HF are obviously white because that's the original color of human beings and that those swarthy Palestinians (and others) are a genetic mutation from the original human form? Or did I read this completely wrong (which is VERY likely)?

In fact, I've re-read it again and I'm ALMOST sure that wasn't your point. Care to elaborate (and type slowly for people like me who don't read so good ... hehe).

Edited February 1, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mfbukowski]

Didn't Joseph Smith give a vision based description of Jesus as blue eyed and quite white in other ways? didn't he indicate that the Father was more or less identical in appearance? 

 

The whole topic of how people picture Christ and God fascinates me.

 

If Christ was a swarthy Palestinian, then would the same be true of the Eternal Father? That is puzzling given how infinitely God predates the biologically contingent genetics that underlies the middle eastern physiognomy.

 

Frankly, I am almost offended by these modern "headshot" Christ portraits that people often have in their homes. It is not just the implicit racism that is offensive but I am more embarrassed by the thoughtless silliness of it. It is hard to respect the intelligence of people who put up such pictures.  Just who is that a picture of? On what basis do we all think "oh, that is a picture of Jesus"? Who do they picture when they pray, call Him to mind or otherwise enjoy their presumptive personal relationship with Jesus? The guy in the picture?

Myths are essential to human thought, as handy short-cuts we can carry around in our conceptual "pockets" like a swiss army knife.  They make us feel like we actually know something, and can deal with the conceptual problems that pop up every day of our lives.

 

In a very real way, as you know, science itself is a story made up to fit what is regarded as "evidence".  I think these pictures are no worse than the models of atoms with little balls swirling around, or saying that light is a "wave".

 

Good to see you Mr. T- hope all is well.

Edited February 1, 2014 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

If I have an Ethiopian icon of Jesus, would that also be implicit racism, and if not, why not?

 

[KevinG]

I agree with those who have observed our representations of deity reflect our own culture and ethnicity. Our contemporary western views are strongly influenced by Renaissance and western classical art.

I would not be surprised to see a very Semitic Christ in the flesh.

Descriptions of whiteness strike me as being about light and brightness of a vision more than a descriptor of race.

[Lightbearer]

Perhaps, someone can help me understand why we continue with our historically inaccurate depictions of a white Jesus. Certainly, the church officials who commission this art must know that Jesus was from PALESTINE and therefore, must have looked like his Middle Eastern kinsfolk. So why do they allow this discrepancy? They certainly wouldn't allow for a scene in which Jesus was depicted as being Chinese or say, wearing blue jeans or listening to an iPod?

Therefore, I assume that there is a reason for this "artistic license." There must be something about our doctrine/policies/folklore that requires us to pretend that Jesus was from Belgium.

What is it?

Who says it is inaccurate? Actually I think the real problem is perhaps He was not 100% Middle-eastern, and thus only inherits that from His mother, He was the Son of God. Would it be a problem for you if God the Father is not black? In fact having to "color correct" all artwork so that He is not depicted as white and blue eyed... in itself sounds a little "racist" to me. In fact it matters little if the artwork is "historically accurate" for example angels are often depicted with wings like a bird, but in reality they do not have wings. I hope that you do not let this effect your testimony, the Lord loves all of His children whether they are white or black, bond or free, male or female. Since the only discription we have of Him comes from John in Revelation and the Prophet Joseph in D&C 110 we have no way of knowing what "color" He was while mortal.

[sethpayne]

Who says it is inaccurate? Actually I think the real problem is perhaps He was not 100% Middle-eastern, and thus only inherits that from His mother, He was the Son of God. Would it be a problem for you if God the Father is not black? In fact having to "color correct" all artwork so that He is not depicted as white and blue eyed... in itself sounds a little "racist" to me. In fact it matters little if the artwork is "historically accurate" for example angels are often depicted with wings like a bird, but in reality they do not have wings. I hope that you do not let this effect your testimony, the Lord loves all of His children whether they are white or black, bond or free, male or female. Since the only discription we have of Him comes from John in Revelation and the Prophet Joseph in D&C 110 we have no way of knowing what "color" He was while mortal.

 

 

So you believe God the Father had literal sex with Mary.  That his genes were literally passed on to Jesus?  Really?