• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus was Asian

Audie

Veteran Member
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.
If "Jesus" actually somehow exists
could somehow be seen, it would resemble
nothing you could possibly imagine.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
However, I also found this portrait of a Native American Jesus.
That's a portrait of an American Jesus. The qualifier "Native" is entirely superfluous as European Americans aren't really American - at least according to @HonestJoe. Being born on the American continent doesn't make you an American.
 

Soandso

ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
If "Jesus" actually somehow exists
could somehow be seen, it would resemble
nothing you could possibly imagine.

170px-Attempted_restoration_of_Ecce_Homo.jpg


Hehe

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

Because it’s anachronistic and meaningless.

Jesus was from the (Eastern) Mediterranean, and would be similar to people from the Levant, Anatolia, Greece and southern Europe

To artificially split these genetically similar peoples into “European” (and thus white) and Asian ( and thus brown) is misleading and a bit racist. It just reflects imperial history, not genetic differences.

People should depict Jesus how they like be it African, East Asian, Levantine, Nordic, etc. rather than trying to score points by saying he was white, brown, Asian or whatever term serves their 21st c purposes.

Whether he was “white” or “brown” just reflects modern political agendas.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
while Christianity people have no words in first person from Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, please, right?
I believe Bible has the actual words of Jesus. And, at least Bible has the words of Bible Jesus. Then the question is, is the Bible Jesus real and I believe he is. And I don't think you can give any good reason to believe otherwise.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Hey hey!
I personally i have no problem believing a guy was called (after translation) Jesus, that was the son of a deity and violated the known rules of nature that's kinda hard for me.
Surely hi's grandparents may have come from the east, i would have no problem with that, i don't know why anyone would, way more likely than caucasian and blonde :D
Cheers!
I believe the Adamic race is a branch of the Indian race which has branches all over the world.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I think when western folks tend to think of someone who is "Asian," they tend to think of someone who looks like this:

Henry_Cao-Web.jpg


But the thing is that Asia is an entire continent, not a country, so it can also include a diverse range of people. This includes folks from the middle east
I believe usually hte term is oriental which simply means eastern.
 

Doc Helpful

*banned*

Jesus was Asian ... yes, and The Pope is a Catholic.​

In the United Kingdom, Arabs, Persians, Jews, Muslims and other Middle Easterners are called "Asians." So, in this sense, and in this sense only, Jesus was Asian. As regards Jorge Bergoglio, to the extent that he is Pope, he is a Catholic pope.
 
Top