Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

All of the time I spent in Ethiopia the only depictions of Christ, his diciples, the three Marys, etc. that I saw there were black. Not the chocolate of the average Black American but the color of deep carbon black. So in Ethiopia and for the Coptic Christians, a Black Christ is the norm, and by the way these Black Ethiopians are 100% Caucasians. Irony of ironies is it not?

Was Christ Black, well he most probably wasn't blond and blue eyed. It would be reasonable to assume that he would be considered "dusky" by today's color line. He could have been Black, but "color" did not hold the same meaning then as now. So injecting "racism" as we define it into the crucifiction of Christ even if he were "Carbon Black" would be a purely modern imposition on the past.

Now there are numerous icons/paintings/statues across White Europe that show the child Christ and his mother Mary as being Black. These are generally refered to as the "Black Madonnas". Thus labeling the mother but ignoring the black Christ child.

One such Black Madonna in France (part of the Les Saintes Maries de la Mer) is consider by some to be Sara, the daughter of Jesus and Mary Magalene.

Some scholars think that these Black Madonnas are actually hold overs or decendent forms from the worship of the Goddess Isis and her devine and miraculously concieved child Horus. Both of whom are derivations within the Egyptian religion. Isis and Horus were often portrayed as black because black was the sacred color of the Nile river and represented the life giving black silt washed onto the fields of Egypt each year by the river's flood.

Thus a Black Jesus and a Black Mary would fit into the iconography of Egypt and the middle-east. This would hold true as well for Europe as the Isis cult was transformed into a Greek cult and then Roman cult and spread across Europe.
 

Is there *any* suggestion in the Scriptures that Jesus was persecuted because of race? I don't recall any. This might, indeed, be a case of "presentitis" -- imposing a modern issue onto an old story.

It might be good for discussion, as long as the story itself doesn't get twisted too much.

On the other hand, Jesus is one conept; the idea of the Christ is transcendent, so color might be a fair point of discussion-contention. (I'm reminded of erstwhile blogstar Mark M. chastising me for talkin' about Jesus all the time, Christ not so much -- as if His name were Mr. Jesus Christ. Hoot.)

I see that Los Angeles's main AME pastor is on board. That'll mean a lot to the black church.

I doubt it'll play in Oklahoma. This seems like a coastal phenom. I'll bet Mayflower would show it! They just showed Al Gore's movie!
 

I think it is supremely signifigant that Israel (The Holy Land) lies at the junction of Europe, Africa, and Asia. That may be part of the Plan.
 

Depicting Jesus as black is irrelevant. It's fine. Why would anybody possibly care?
 

Ah, but it's relevance lies in the fact the black people who are behind the film see it as relevant. They didn't just accidentally produce a movie depicting Jesus as black. They did on purpose, for several reasons, as outlined in the press releases:

To provoke.

To cast blacks in a holy light.

To, specifically, bring race into the Gospel.

Could this be the Jesus Christ Super Star of our generation? Somebody will have to tell me. I was 5 or so when that first came out, and I've never seen it in any venue. What made it provocative?
 

What made it provocative?
It was very much a story about Judas and treated Judas with some sympathy. It also infered that Judas' view that Jesus was "just a man" might be true.
Good music though, you should take a gander at it.
 

I think the race is irrelevant. I remember a story from when I was a kid about a nativity story done by Native Americans where Jesus was dressed in skins, and put on a cradle board instead of a manger. I think that anything to help the story transcend the culture is fine.
 

Well, the Gospel *is* bigger than the "Story of Jesus"! There's that transcendence thing -- and another reason to take the Bible seriously but not l-i-t-e-r-a-l-l-y!

God's bigger than the book people want to keep him cooped up in. The Christ is bigger than the Jesus people keep in their hearts-on their dashboards-in their paintings-on their walls-on their T-shirts, etc., etc.
 

I agree with Dan that 'depicting Jesus as black is irrelevant.'

If the Black community wants to depict Jesus as Black, fine, so long as they don't promote for truth that Jesus was Black. He was Jewish. His bloodline was pure; unmixed. He was neither white or black... an argument that has struck me as ridiculous ever since Steven Biko shot back at the judge, "Why do you call yourselves white? You're more pink than white."

If anything, Jesus was dark skinned much like middle eastern men are today; tanned, olive-skinned.

But to say that the Gospel is bigger than Jesus Christ, or the "story" of Jesus Christ, is to plainly ignore the fact that without Jesus Christ there would be no Gospel. Without the man Jesus and the story of His life, there would be no hope of restoration; no return to fellowship with God. No salvation.

I think I get the spirit in which ER says this, but in literal terms, Jesus IS the Gospel. And I'm not talking about words on a page. I'm talking "The Gospel". Jesus is the Gospel.
 

You *do* indeed get the spirit in which I intended it. Jesus *is* the Gospel -- all he was, said and did on earth, as far as we know, and all that He does as the Christ, which we can scarcely fathom.

But I don't know what you mean, or mean to imply by "his bloodline was pure; unmixed."

A friend of mine pointed out: "His ancestors include Ruth the Moabite -- a foreigner."

Jesus the human is Jewish. Jesus the Christ transcends race, gender, um, national origin, diet preference and sexual orientation, among other things. :-)
 

Yikes. I was half way home before it dawned on me that we are skirting dangeroulsy close to treating racial purity as meaningul -- to anyone but racists. Whoa. So, now I don;t know what to think of the notion of Jesus's "bloodline" being "pure." Pure what?
 

Pure as in racial mixing. Ruth, a Moabite was, racially, no different than Jews. A foreigner, yes, but not of a different race. Besides which, 30 generations from Jesus to Boaz and Ruth, --Matthew 1:1-17)??? Come on!

Jesus' race is not really an issue. His message is. But that doesn't negate my point that Jesus was not a black man. Neither was Solomon, despite his use of the term 'black'. Willful ignorance has read 'race' into that one too.

Still, I'm not going to decry a film that depicts Christ as black as long as the message is the same... provided the entirety of Jewry is also portrayed as black, keeping the same customs, and names, as found in the scriptures... provided White Romans aren't portrayed as oppressors of Blacks. I know that's a fine line to walk, but toying with the Gospel and it's meaning is dangerous.

Also, the fact that Ethiopians depict Christ, his disciples, the 3 Marys, etc. as 'deep carbon black' is about as relevant to truth as white Europeans depicting Christ, his disciples, the 3 Marys, etc. as Nordic white. I simply chalk that up to cultural perception, and since Jesus' race is irrelevant in light of the Gospel of Christ........

Jesus was middle eastern, sun darkened, but not black, and not lily white, nor was he an effeminate pretty boy. He was a Jew's Jew. Manly and strong. But again... irrelevant accept where it touches the Gospel.

Interesting post, and until I actually follow the link you've provided, nothing to get bent out of shape over.
 

"He was Jewish. His bloodline was pure; unmixed...nor was he an effeminate pretty boy. He was a Jew's Jew. Manly and strong."

!!

Methinks you protest too much, El.

Would it bother you if Jesus' bloodline wasn't "pure"? Do you realize that a goodly number of people - myself included - find these terms derogatory and offensive?

Shall I tell my sweet mixed race kids in my church that their bloodline isn't "pure"? Shall I speak in condescending terms to those with effeminate traits? Will that help anyone see the Love of Christ?
 

Galatians 3:26-29 -- You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
 

Wow, Dan! Talk about protesting too much! And on top of that, off on a red-herring tangent at that! My concern is only for the historically authentic Jesus, so if you take issue with my comment, take it up with God. I made NO blanket statement about children of mixed heritage-- that's all on you. Further more, my comment was only to illustrate early European perceptions of Christ as demonstrated in art... pre Michael Angelo. Besides, Trixie has it right in terms of how we are to look at one another in the faith. Treat the 'sweet mixed race kids' and those with 'effeminate traits' accordingly... with love. Like you're supposed to!

I think you're looking for an offense where there isn't one simply because it's ELAshley commenting.
 

I'm showin' up late to this Bar-Be-Que, but I know the ER will appreciate the fact that the Victory Memorial United Methodist Church in Guymon, Oklahoma has a black Jesus in their stained glass window over the alter. Not flesh colored, not brown, but full on black. Why? I have no idea but I'm sure there's a story behind it. What's ultimately very funny is that in a town where everyone is *very* aware of black people, no one, not one person, as long as I've been there has every commented on or acknowledged the black Jesus.
 

But if you want to be offended, be offended at my less than approving stance on the film in question. After visiting the link, and examining it's content, I see the producers have strayed considerably from the truth.

"...Color Of The Cross is... the first to suggest that the Crucifixion could have been racially motivated..." ???

There is absolutely no evidence of this. None. The Gospel's clearly demonstrate that it was His message that got Him killed... not the color of his skin.

Since none of has seen the film, I can't say anything further, but I do worry that this is little more than a "Oh, those evil White's!" hit piece. There is no evidence to suggest Jesus was any race other than that of the 'Fairer' skinned priests in the film.

What could very be the worst thing about this film is it's potential to create further division in the minds of Blacks primarily, between blacks and whites. How many who view this film will latch on the idea that Jesus was a Black man persecuted and killed for the color of His skin? One too many. And that, brother, is not the message of the New Testament.

And Drlobojo is absolutely correct in saying "'color' did not hold the same meaning then as now" and "injecting 'racism' as we define it into the crucifixion of Christ even if He were "Carbon Black" would be a purely modern imposition on the past" Yes, an imposition on truth, and on accuracy. Even in the trailer, the statement is made... "Because He is black..."

Want to know why He was killed? Matthew 21:33-39 is but one reason given by Jesus Himself... And race is not at issue.

If you want to be offended, Dan, be offended by THIS comment. But make sure it's me you're offended by, and not the truth. I'd rather have you angry at me.

"astounding interpretations..." ?

Indeed!
 

"..no one, not one person, as long as I've been there has every commented on or acknowledged the black Jesus."

And why should they? Race is not an issue until it becomes a tool of division. And the stained glass window in question has obviously never been used as a tool of divisiveness. Unlike, I fear, "Color of the Cross" may well be... Judging strictly by the write-up and trailer.

Peace, everyone. It's not my intention to be a contentious commenter, only an observant one.
 

Elashley, I was fairly sure you don't mean anything by it. I'm telling you that using that sort of language is going to be off-putting to many people. I'm trying to help you in interpersonal relationships. Take it or leave it.
 

Come on guys, chill. Let the movie be divisive or affirming on its own. Commentary shouldn't become a hammer or an ax doing more damage than the original work.

Contrast that church window with the black Jesus with a display at the Grotto in Portland, Ore., where a manniquin of Mary as a blue-eyed blonde holds a chubby, blond Jesus. That one stunned me far more than a darker-skinned Jesus ever could. Sheer geography and heritage would suggest that Jesus had more melanin than is normally portrayed in our Sunday-school portraits in the United States.
I can't imagine what aspect of the human Jesus will be up for debate in a hundred years. Ear lobe length, perhaps? [roll eyes]
 

It's hard to avoid contention when so many words come loaded.

Jesus was a man, therfore he was manlike. "Manly" has a connotation that matches the opposite of effiminate, which itself is a loaded word. Sigh.

He was a Jew's Jew. I know what you mean, but that short phrase is loaded with its own ... some kind of patriarchical jingoism or something. I dunno.

Not to pick on EL.

Brother Dan *does* seem ready to find a disagreement where none might exist. :-), Dan, :-).

On the other hand, I expect parents of mixed kiddoes to be ready to fight first and ask questions later.

Fact is, "racial purity," is pretyt much a myth, I think. You can send DNA samples off now and pay something like $400 to find out how much American Indian-European-African-whatever you have in ya. I'd do it if I had $400 to blow. Mine would come back mostly white, with lots of mutt.
 

True enough ER, but we're talking about DNA from Palestine 2000 years ago, not Oklahoma, 2006. If you're going to take the book of Matthew even remotely serious, you have to accept the Geneology of Jesus in Chapter 1.
 

Where's Maury Povich when we need him?
 

Say dudes and dudettes dontcha remember that Jesus was a halfbreed !!!!!
I mean, don't you believe that he was the "begotten" son of God? Check the revised version of John 3:16. Now that means that he wouldn't be a "pure" human would he? I mean half of his DNA would come from the source of perfection himself wouldn't it? Any "imperfection" would have to have originated on Mary's side of the family. So the fact that he was a short skinny (fat maybe) black dude would have to have originated with M...... oh wait a minute.... maybe it wasn't Mary after all! Maybe God is the source of the short skinny black genes! Something to ponder ain't it? Black God. Squat God. Feminine God? A short squat fat feminine Black God. Drat it , that's from the HBO series Six Feet Under. They've already done that one.

Oh yes, In "Jesus Christ Super Star" Judas was Black.
 

fuck you and every thing you stand for you sack of shit.
 

Well heck, a day or two ago I wouldn't have had anything to say about this post......But just this morning I went to the County health department to get a flu shot, mainly because my doc is still waiting to get a load. The nice lady said, "Are you white, or do you call yourself white", I said I guess that's close enough, before my people can to this country they were probably run out of every country in Europe. Big laugh rose up from a room full of mutts like me and ER.
 

I don't do this much, forgot to sign,

brudder
 

Now DrL has me thinking of Divine DNA. Probably not just carbon-based amino acids - maybe it's made out of a divine substance - Elohimite. That would be one cool double helix.