Jesus was Asian

[Twilight Hue]

So I was watching a video on YouTube by some guy called "The Friendly Atheist" about an article posted by Christianity Today, and I thought the response many Christians had to the article was interesting

I went online to see if I could read more responses on Twitter concerning the subject, but unfortunately I have to sign up to see comments and I'm loathe to participate in most forms of social media, so no thanks

Instead, I found some articles the subject, so I'll be referencing that here. Here's one from Fox:

Christian magazine ridiculed after insisting Jesus 'was Asian': 'Did you guys read the Bible?' | Fox News

'By representing Jesus as Japanese, Indonesian or Indian' art can convey 'the universality of Christ's birth,' the Christianity Today article suggested

www.foxnews.com

Christianity Today published a story entitled, "How Asian Artists Picture Jesus’ Birth From 1240 to Today," in which writer Victoria Emily Jones argued "Jesus was born in Asia. He was Asian."

The photo essay featured nine pieces of artwork from Asian cultures depicting the Nativity. Jones claimed that by representing Jesus as Asian, Christian artists could portray a deeper "theological meaning" of "the universality of Christ’s birth."

"Some may object to depicting Jesus as anything other than a brown male born into a Jewish family in Bethlehem of Judea in the first century, believing that doing so undermines his historicity. But Christian artists who tackle the subject of the Incarnation are often aiming not at historical realism but at theological meaning," Jones wrote.

So apparently the article was more about how Jesus was depicted in the east since all we see are depictions of how Jesus was historically portrayed in the west. After all, Jesus was born in Asia, no?

Still, this concept got a LOT of blowback from more popular Christians in the west, with some saying things such as:

Christian blogger Samuel Sey shot back, "Blasphemy. Jesus is a Jew."

Blasphemy? That's a pretty vitriolic response to Jesus being Asian

Managing editor for Christian satire news site The Babylon Bee, Joel Berry, joked, "Next can you please do an article with a bunch of AI images of Jesus if He were Rosa Parks."

Oof... A weird take. I don't really care for conservative "comedy," but that's a thread for a different day. Anyways, so the guy thinks this is some kind of leftist political thingy? I dunno

Then there's Franklin Graham's (Billy Graham's son) response to the prospect that Jesus was Asian as seen on a different article, here:

Franklin Graham slams Christianity Today for article claiming Jesus was Asian

Evangelist Franklin Graham criticized Christianity Today on Wednesday after the magazine his father founded published an article claiming that Jesus Christ was Asian

www.christianpost.com

"We don’t have to wonder or speculate about this — the Bible gives us very specific details about Jesus’ earthly lineage and where He was born and grew up," Graham wrote. "We know that Jesus was Jewish. However, if you don’t believe the Bible or accept it as the Word of God, then everything is in question."

"Guess what — we don’t get to make God in our own image," Graham added. "He is Who He is! We must be on guard against anything or anyone who attempts to undermine the authority of the Word of God."

More geographical ignorance, but what's more interesting is that there's more of that vitriol. "Guess what - we don't get to make god in our own image." I don't see him saying anything in regards to people depicting Jesus as a white, blue eyed European even though that is WAY more common of a way to depict Jesus. I wonder why that is?

The article continues:

CT took flak from many others on social media for the article, which prompted some to accuse the publication of "going woke."

Interesting that people are so repulsed by things like this. What does "going woke" even mean anymore?

Anyways, if anyone wants to take the time to do so, the comments section in both articles make an interesting read. Just... A warning before you read anything on the Fox comments section - it's a nasty, toxic place no matter what the article is about

The original Christianity Today article:

How Asian Artists Picture Jesus’ Birth From 1240 to Today - Christianity Today

Through Nativity art, the Word takes on flesh across diverse Eastern cultures.

www.christianitytoday.com

Thoughts?

Jesus can't be Asian. There is no wok on the table in that painting of the last supper.

 

[Shaul]

I wrote “was” because Jesus is not physically on the earth, but in the eternal state in an exalted, resurrected body at present. That doesn’t negate the fact that I believe His Jewishness is always a part of His Identity and Being. And the scriptures do indicate that…
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:27-28

So you accept that the risen Jesus is still a Jew.

 

[InChrist]

So you accept that the risen Jesus is still a Jew.

Yes, but as I said I am not sure exactly what that means in the eternal realm.

 

[1213]

...
Thoughts?

I think it is interesting why it is so important for some, what Jesus looked like. I don't know why some people seem to think that non white Jesus would somehow make him less good.

However, I don't think we really know what he looked, because by what the Bible tells, Jesus was born by influence of God, without no man touching Maria. That is why his appearance could have been something else than modern "scientists" want to think.

I personally think Jesus was bright and therefore didn't look like in the image in the youtube video. But, it is not very important to me. For me his words are the important thing.

 

[HonestJoe]

Thoughts?

The general concept of the original article seems fine, and is actually quite informative. We all know that Western art has traditionally depicted Jesus as white European so it shouldn't be surprising (or any more wrong) that Christians in other cultures would do something similar. After all, isn't the typical Christian concept that Jesus came for all people of the world.

I do think the specific phrase "Jesus was born in Asian so he was Asian" was at best ignorant, lazy writing and at worst a deliberate attempt to trigger controversy (though I generally favour the former in the absence of other evidence). The problem is that the racial term "Asian" can mean different things to different people and generally doesn't mirror the geographic continent of Asia. It's also the case that there wasn't anything like as generalised identifiers 2000 years ago, when people living in what is now Israel would barely be aware of the people living in what is now China or Russia, let alone consider themselves as part of one racial grouping.

That said, making any kind of controversy out of it seems excessive and I think says a lot more about modern social politics as it does about the truth.

 

[Soandso]

I do think the specific phrase "Jesus was born in Asian so he was Asian" was at best ignorant, lazy writing and at worst a deliberate attempt to trigger controversy (though I generally favour the former in the absence of other evidence).

What's ignorant and lazy about it? Also, why should it be controversial?

The problem is that the racial term "Asian" can mean different things to different people and generally doesn't mirror the geographic continent of Asia.

True, though the article made it very clear what it's intentions were, I thought. I feel a lot of the negative publicity it received was due to preconceived notions and assumptions rather than what the article actually attempted to accomplish. Why the knee jerk reactions?

It's also the case that there wasn't anything like as generalised identifiers 2000 years ago, when people living in what is now Israel would barely be aware of the people living in what is now China or Russia, let alone consider themselves as part of one racial grouping.

It's true that our current understandings now didn't exist then, but we still use our modern understanding to identify things - even when we apply them to the past. It's our frame of reference

If we want to handle things within the cultural context of the worldview from the past, that's a good thing to do, but it gets very granular - especially as the borders of the known world change for each culture as time moves on. That gets rather confusing for people who don't have an academic interest in the subject

 

[HonestJoe]

What's ignorant and lazy about it? Also, why should it be controversial?

It's ignorant and lazy because it's factually wrong (or at very least, grossly over-simplistic). The simple fact is that someone originating from anywhere within the continent of Asia isn't necessarily considered racially Asian by any reasonable definition. I agree it isn't anything like important enough to be controversial but that's true of lots of controversies. It doesn't stop the inevitably idiots over-reacting.

True, though the article made it very clear what it's intentions were, I thought.

As I said, I actually liked the article itself, and it was just that single opening statement the was the mistake. It just gave a firmer hook for the idiots to react to.

If we want to handle things within the cultural context of the worldview from the past, that's a good thing to do, but it gets very granular - especially as the borders of the known world change for each culture as time moves on. That gets rather confusing for people who don't have an academic interest in the subject

Exactly, that's why explicitly labelling the race of Jesus was a mistake. It wasn't necessary to establish the context of the article, it was probably just a flippant line that sounded clever at the time.

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus was Asian​

I think it is interesting why it is so important for some, what Jesus looked like. I don't know why some people seem to think that non white Jesus would somehow make him less good.

However, I don't think we really know what he looked, because by what the Bible tells, Jesus was born by influence of God, without no man touching Maria. That is why his appearance could have been something else than modern "scientists" want to think.

I personally think Jesus was bright and therefore didn't look like in the image in the youtube video. But, it is not very important to me. For me his words are the important thing.

For me his (Jesus') words are the important thing.

while Christianity people have no words in first person from Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, please, right?

Regards

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However, I also found this portrait of a Native American Jesus.

What's with the orange slice?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Jesus looked like this:
View attachment 86412

Blonde, white guy? I like the logo on His shirt.

 

[Soandso]

It's ignorant and lazy because it's factually wrong (or at very least, grossly over-simplistic). The simple fact is that someone originating from anywhere within the continent of Asia isn't necessarily considered racially Asian by any reasonable definition. I agree it isn't anything like important enough to be controversial but that's true of lots of controversies. It doesn't stop the inevitably idiots over-reacting.

Hmmm... I guess I look at it a little differently. I work and interact with people from all over the world and sometimes my coworkers from, say, India have had to explain to other coworkers of mine that they are, geographically at least, Asian. That India is in Asia. "Asian" as a racial identifier isn't really used much except in the general sense like cracking jokes about Asian honesty or some such. Instead nationalities like Filipino, Japanese, Korean, etc. are the main way people refer to themselves or others

Exactly, that's why explicitly labelling the race of Jesus was a mistake. It wasn't necessary to establish the context of the article, it was probably just a flippant line that sounded clever at the time.

You raise some interesting points. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts!

 

[Soandso]

What's with the orange slice?

It's part of the great prophecy heralding the messiah's second coming

 

[Audie]

So I was watching a video on YouTube by some guy called "The Friendly Atheist" about an article posted by Christianity Today, and I thought the response many Christians had to the article was interesting

I went online to see if I could read more responses on Twitter concerning the subject, but unfortunately I have to sign up to see comments and I'm loathe to participate in most forms of social media, so no thanks

Instead, I found some articles the subject, so I'll be referencing that here. Here's one from Fox:

Christian magazine ridiculed after insisting Jesus 'was Asian': 'Did you guys read the Bible?' | Fox News

'By representing Jesus as Japanese, Indonesian or Indian' art can convey 'the universality of Christ's birth,' the Christianity Today article suggested

www.foxnews.com

Christianity Today published a story entitled, "How Asian Artists Picture Jesus’ Birth From 1240 to Today," in which writer Victoria Emily Jones argued "Jesus was born in Asia. He was Asian."

The photo essay featured nine pieces of artwork from Asian cultures depicting the Nativity. Jones claimed that by representing Jesus as Asian, Christian artists could portray a deeper "theological meaning" of "the universality of Christ’s birth."

"Some may object to depicting Jesus as anything other than a brown male born into a Jewish family in Bethlehem of Judea in the first century, believing that doing so undermines his historicity. But Christian artists who tackle the subject of the Incarnation are often aiming not at historical realism but at theological meaning," Jones wrote.

So apparently the article was more about how Jesus was depicted in the east since all we see are depictions of how Jesus was historically portrayed in the west. After all, Jesus was born in Asia, no?

Still, this concept got a LOT of blowback from more popular Christians in the west, with some saying things such as:

Christian blogger Samuel Sey shot back, "Blasphemy. Jesus is a Jew."

Blasphemy? That's a pretty vitriolic response to Jesus being Asian

Managing editor for Christian satire news site The Babylon Bee, Joel Berry, joked, "Next can you please do an article with a bunch of AI images of Jesus if He were Rosa Parks."

Oof... A weird take. I don't really care for conservative "comedy," but that's a thread for a different day. Anyways, so the guy thinks this is some kind of leftist political thingy? I dunno

Then there's Franklin Graham's (Billy Graham's son) response to the prospect that Jesus was Asian as seen on a different article, here:

Franklin Graham slams Christianity Today for article claiming Jesus was Asian

Evangelist Franklin Graham criticized Christianity Today on Wednesday after the magazine his father founded published an article claiming that Jesus Christ was Asian

www.christianpost.com

"We don’t have to wonder or speculate about this — the Bible gives us very specific details about Jesus’ earthly lineage and where He was born and grew up," Graham wrote. "We know that Jesus was Jewish. However, if you don’t believe the Bible or accept it as the Word of God, then everything is in question."

"Guess what — we don’t get to make God in our own image," Graham added. "He is Who He is! We must be on guard against anything or anyone who attempts to undermine the authority of the Word of God."

More geographical ignorance, but what's more interesting is that there's more of that vitriol. "Guess what - we don't get to make god in our own image." I don't see him saying anything in regards to people depicting Jesus as a white, blue eyed European even though that is WAY more common of a way to depict Jesus. I wonder why that is?

The article continues:

CT took flak from many others on social media for the article, which prompted some to accuse the publication of "going woke."

Interesting that people are so repulsed by things like this. What does "going woke" even mean anymore?

Anyways, if anyone wants to take the time to do so, the comments section in both articles make an interesting read. Just... A warning before you read anything on the Fox comments section - it's a nasty, toxic place no matter what the article is about

The original Christianity Today article:

How Asian Artists Picture Jesus’ Birth From 1240 to Today - Christianity Today

Through Nativity art, the Word takes on flesh across diverse Eastern cultures.

www.christianitytoday.com

Thoughts?

I think he did not look like me.

 

[Viker]

My thoughts; Jesus was Jewish.

Yes. From the continent of Asia.

 

[Father Heathen]

I asked because you wrote that he was Jewish, in the past tense. Instead of Jesus is Jewish in the present tense.

We refer to the dead in the past tense, obviously.

 

[Father Heathen]

Jesus looked like this:
View attachment 86412

Except that he wasn't white, so no.

 

[Shaul]

We refer to the dead in the past tense, obviously.

"We"? I was talking with @InChrist, not you. Since Jesus is putatively risen he isn't dead, obviously.

 

[Viker]

I think he did not look like me.

Millions of Asians don't look like you. Asia is a continent not a country or an ethnicity. India, Iran, Iraq, etc are on the Asian continent.

 

[Viker]

The point of the article discussed in the OP is that people tend to depict Jesus closely resembling someone from they're culture. In Europe he's been traditionally depicted as European. In Ethiopia he has been depicted as Ethiopian. In the Philippines and Korea he's been depicted as Philippine or Korean. It was an article from an artistic point of view. And it has it's critics beat on a technicality. Jesus would have been from the continent of Asia, therefore Asian. It's not difficult to comprehend. I suppose for some it's impossible to accept.

 

[Audie]

Millions of Asians don't look like you. Asia is a continent not a country or an ethnicity. India, Iran, Iraq, etc are on the Asian continent.

Oh, really? All this time Ive been right
here looking at Asia, and never realized
its like that here.