Doesn't matter to me. I could live with a black Jesus. I don't for a moment think He was, though, given his status as a Jew. I understand that some people believe the original Jews were black, and others portray them more as Arabic.

I don't think anyone can really know, though. Iranians, for example, aren't Arabic. If you placed many of them in an American setting you wouldn't know they weren't caucasian. Actually, I guess they are cuacasian in the indo-European sense.

Racially, the Middle East has changed dramatically over the last couple of thousand years. Conquests of various empires changed the racial characteristics in regional Italy and Spain as well. There was a push in the late 20th century by some activist educators to pose that "white" is fairly rare and recent in world history.

It isn't, though. 3000 year old Mummies have been found in Asia whose hair and skin and features are unmistakably caucasian. The images we have from early greece most certainly don't depict the inhabitants there as black. Even in Egypt there is contrast in images of people with very dark skin from other places and the inhabitants there.

I see the black-ification of history much like the gay-ification. Around the same time some were trying to say every major historical figure they could find was gay. I have no doubt some were, but it doesn't do history any good to try and slant reality toward how you want it to look. We should have learned that from Hitler.

I guess portraying Him as Black isn't much different than painting a man born in Jerusalem with blonde hair and blue eyes.  I know there will be people who have a major problem with it though, but I'd want to hear the reason first.  If they merely chose a Black actor this time, then no big deal, but if they chose the actor specifically to raise the controversy then I don't see how they are any less racist than the people who will protest.

According to the article, our country will be 'traumatized' because of this.

Then the author of the article is an ass. There may be some die hard racists who will be upset over it, but I hardly think the country will be traumatized.

According to the article, America is the only country where black people worship a white Jesus. In Africa he is black, in Japan he is Japanese.

What about Latin America?  But like the others said, it really does not matter.  And while it will piss off some people, I doubt the country will be 'traumatized' by it.  Besides, there are very few "pure" race people in this country when you come right down to it. 

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Tuesday, October 31, 2006Doesn't matter to me. I could live with a black Jesus. I don't for a moment think He was, though, given his status as a Jew. I understand that some people believe the original Jews were black, and others portray them more as Arabic.

That's good Baker. I think it won't matter to a lot of people too. Interesting point that he probably wasn't because he was Jewish, and yes there were and are Jews who are black.

don't think anyone can really know, though. Iranians, for example, aren't Arabic. If you placed many of them in an American setting you wouldn't know they weren't caucasian. Actually, I guess they are cuacasian in the indo-European sense.

This is true.

I see the black-ification of history much like the gay-ification. Around the same time some were trying to say every major historical figure they could find was gay. I have no doubt some were, but it doesn't do history any good to try and slant reality toward how you want it to look.

True, I agree that history shouldn't be 'toyed' with to make it reflect reality. However, there are some cases where history does not depict reality in it's racial makeup. I believe a lot of the changes that have been made to some movies and documentation of history is to correct this.

If they merely chose a Black actor this time, then no big deal, but if they chose the actor specifically to raise the controversy then I don't see how they are any less racist than the people who will protest.

I agree with you on this Ted. It certainly wouldn't look good if this is their reason for doing this movie.

Then the author of the article is an ass.

That he may be M!! I guess he has to make his article interesting uh?!

There may be some die hard racists who will be upset over it, but I hardly think the country will be traumatized.

I was surprised he used the word traumatized, yes, there will be a few who will be upset, hopefully not to the extreme, but traumatized, maybe not.

Reply By: little-whipPosted: Tuesday, October 31, 2006Sounds to me like a great marketing ploy, ala The Last Temptation or The Passion of the Christ. LoL, even Jesus Christ, Superstar, as mild as it seems by today's standards, caused quite a bit of ruckus when first released because it portrayed Jesus as the original hippie.

You're proabably right Whip. They're definately getting some PR for the movie this way. Like I mentioned I didnt' hear about it before and the movie opens in a couple of days.

It's always amusing to watch humans try to categorize the uncategorizable, to comprehend the incomprehensible, to concieve the inconceivable.So many Gods, so little time...

Haha...

I'll wait for the dvd, I think, if I bother at all.

Likewise. I don't think I'll go out to buy it either, rental, yep.

What about Latin America?

From what I've seen of pictures of Jesus in Latino homes, he's either White or Latino.

Besides, there are very few "pure" race people in this country when you come right down to it.

Now that's opening a whole new barrel right there!

everytime i see people debating this, i think of Dogma and "Buddy Christ"

Reply By: Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1Posted: Tuesday, October 31, 2006everytime i see people debating this, i think of Dogma and "Buddy Christ"

Haha...thanks for the reminder Sean! I really enjoy Kevin Smith's movies and Dogma was one of those that was over the top and quite funny! I quite enjoyed Alanis Morisette in that role, quite innovative if you ask me!

We all know Jesus was a woman.

Reply By: Dan Greene(Anonymous User)Posted: Tuesday, October 31, 2006We all know Jesus was a woman.

No Dan, Jesus is a man. Now God on the other hand....that fact is open for debate! [said quite tongue in cheek!]

From what I've seen of pictures of Jesus in Latino homes, he's either White or Latino.

The reason I asked is that I have seen a lot of statues of Jesus in Latin houses, and never once noticed if he was white or brown.

The reason I asked is that I have seen a lot of statues of Jesus in Latin houses, and never once noticed if he was white or brown.

ohhh...I think brown mostly. Sometimes it's difficult to tell.

You know, the interesting part is while I've seen Jesus in black and brown, has anyone seen a Mary that wasn't lily white? I have a feeling that a black Mary will tick some people off even more than a black Jesus.

I've heard of the 'black madonnas', but like the article said I don't think they are intended to be african black, are they? Call me nuts, but I still say you'll hear a bigger stink about a black (african) Mary. The article says that african Marys are popular in America, but I can't for the life of me remember ever seeing one.

The article says that african Marys are popular in America, but I can't for the life of me remember ever seeing one.

me neither...i've seen a few that looked a lil italian, but not black

Mary and Jesus both came from the tribe of Judah. Judah actually means Jew. So they were both as Jewish as Jewish can be. I would imagine they would have been neither black nor white but dark complicted with olive skin.

Many don't realize but Christ coming from the line of Judah was prophesied way back in Genesis 49. Jacob gave a blessing to each of his 12 sons and this was Judah's:

"Judah your brothers will praise you. Your hand will be on the neck of your enemies. Your father's sons will bow down to you.....The scepter will not depart from Judah nor the ruler's staff from between his feet until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his."