Isn't a blue eyed, white skinned depiction of Jesus in truth a false god?

Let me explain. When talking of false gods I often here about anything that is not ';God,'; in the Abrahamic sense of the word. So, since Jesus was born in the Middle East, was a Hebrew Jew (according to the Bible Matt. 1:1).





Depicting him in religious ways as a ';western'; white skinned, blue eyed man would be akin to worshiping a false god since Jesus (actually god) was born and was both brown eyed and Hebrew. We are talking 2000 years ago in the Middle East. He was MIddle Eastern if that gives you a better depiction.





The Q is up top and repeated in the previous paragraph for those who read.Isn't a blue eyed, white skinned depiction of Jesus in truth a false god?
Absolutely. It is idol worship.





Jesus couldn't have looked that way.





Its like putting up a picture of Hulk Hogan and claiming you are worshiping Jesus while picturing the Hulkster.Isn't a blue eyed, white skinned depiction of Jesus in truth a false god?
You aren't supposed to worship the image anyways. The people's models were western looking so thats how the artists drew them. Artists and anthropologists are usually two different things, especially during the medieval times. The artist most likely had never seen a Middle Eastern Jew and therefore would not have been able to draw one.
I understand your point. However, all cultures where Christianity is practiced, even in secret, tend to see Jesus the way they look. Since, in Spirit we are one, there isn't any harm in thinking of Him in that way.


There's a well known Christian song we learn as children in Sunday school. ';Jesus loves the little children; all the little childen of the world. Red and yellow, black and white, they are prescious in His sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world.'; Whethr we're red, or yellow, black or white, that's how we see Him too.
About like depicting the Buddha as Chinese when he was from India. although Muslim sensitivity about it is silly, as though God can get His feelings hurt, I think it makes perfect sense to not attempt to create images of religious icons for whom we have no contemporaneous depictions. No one knows what Moses, Yeshua, Mohammed, Zoroaster, the Buddha, Confucious, Lao Tzu or any of the other great religious figures looked like, and the only reason anyone creates these images is for idolatrous uses.
Ever hear of artistic license?





If I create something in one style, I may repeat the style.





All you need to know is that he looked older than his years and some people said he looked sad.





After reading some of these posts I am sad.





Yesterday, after just reading ';about'; some anti-god books (not the books themselves), I though I was having a heart attack. These were books recommended on here. There are some really sick authors out there when you feel sucker-punched just reading about that stuff.





You become your thoughts, folks. Control your mind or someone else will do it for you.





God love you!
Its just another white propagandist conspiracy. However half the world doesn't even class him as a God too. However if he was white or whatever colour - some say black, then they would be depicted as superior to all other who don't have a similar profile to Jesus' physical form.
Since Jesus never posed for a painter, nor for a sculptor, no one can say what he looked like.





People can only wonder, because there is no way to know for sure.





It doesn't matter what he looked like on earth, what matters is that he paid the price for sin for us and thanks only to him, we are saved.
No matter how you picture him, white, black, pink or purple he is false. He is man made and even if someone once lived named Jesus he was not the son of a god since none ever existed.
Whitey would have serious trouble worshipping Jebuz if he looked like one of them dayam terr'rists...
well it is not false becuase Lord Jesus was real, but he look like arab then a pasty white boy like myself. Mary had some black ancestor too.
It isn't the image of Jesus that is worshiped, it is His being, so nope... it isn't.
I do not think his appearance is really that important.
It's worshipping a false idol for sure.
Yes!Good one!Somone has been paying attention!Ted Nugent isn't a Jeebus,though he IS trying kinda hard.
Wow


Thats funny.





'Jesus' WAS black! (or atleast tan)
First of all, I thought Jesus was the ';son of God';, not God ';Himself';. If you believe that Jesus was God, then do you also believe that anthropomorphizing him, ';God';, as a human being is correct? Personally, I think that it speaks to the hubris of man to make God, the creator of the universe, in man's image.


Secondly, your European view of Jesus didn't exist until artist began depicting Jesus in artwork. The first artists were of the Roman empire, and so depicted Jesus having similar features to their own countrymen. Hence, European artists make ';European'; Jesus. Remember, people back then didn't see many people with different ethnic features than their own.
Hello,





No, not to the people concerned living in Europe though I'm sure Christ looked quite Semitic.





Well once Islam took over the Middle East a lot of art depicting humans was eliminated since the human form is not permitted in Islamic art. The artists who painted the pictures of Jesus during the middle ages and Renaissance lived at a time where the vast majority of people did not wander any more than 5 or 10 kilometres from their villages. The artists therefore as well as the population only painted and saw the world from their own perspective and had no idea what the 1st century middle eastern culture looked like. Also if you look at the buildings and dress as well as the Roman military in the pictures you can see the artists are totally out to lunch on historical accuracy.





Cheers,





Michael Kelly